Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 53
60
<< 50  51  52    54 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by spw184
 

I would agree, however, when it has been proven that the Catholic Church has gone to extrodinary means to hide the facts, even to not defrocking but moving priests who are accused and even proven to do such, this is not just the individual, but goes much larger.




posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by yes4141

That what you claim to be certain of is objectively correct yet the exact same situation for others and they are objectively wrong!



I use objective knowledge in addition to subjectivity. When I say, the objective scientific biological knowledge of the human body indicates men and women are designed to bond together, but men and men are not,. it's purely objective, based on observable facts. There's no subjectivity there. When I say that GOD designed man this way, that could be argued to be my subjective inclusion in the discussion. Because I cannot "prove god" in the same way that I can "prove biological facts".



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by yes4141

That what you claim to be certain of is objectively correct yet the exact same situation for others and they are objectively wrong!



I use objective knowledge in addition to subjectivity. When I say, the objective scientific biological knowledge of the human body indicates men and women are designed to bond together, but men and men are not,. it's purely objective, based on observable facts. There's no subjectivity there. When I say that GOD designed man this way, that could be argued to be my subjective inclusion in the discussion. Because I cannot "prove god" in the same way that I can "prove biological facts".



And than when we state that biology has proven that homosexuality starts in the womb, or maybe in DNA you do this:



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by spw184
>
Im gay and i know people who have fully functioning families with two same sex parents.

I'm straight and I know straight couples that are just so happy
until we found out otherwise

You don't know what goes on behind closed doors
I'm not at all suggesting they will do bad things to the child, please don't interpret that

But a baby needs a father figure and a mother figure

You know how many people living in ghettos complain of not having a fatherly role model?
How is a lesbian couple going to teach the kid to play fastball?
How is a lesbian couple going to teach a kid how to shave?

the list goes on and on
How would a father explain girls getting their periods to a little girl? She would feel so uncomfortable

and i'm only scratching the surface here


So how is that different from a single parent, of which there are many also? I have two daughters which I raise on my own with no mother figure. They seem to be working this stuff out on their own, especially the girl stuff, yet I try to help and teach them as much as I can. I admit as they get older some things may be a challenge, the period part and puberty I admit will be especially challenging, but luckily for me, I have family. I have a mother, father, sisters and brothers, etc, who will help me through as they always have.
It is of little doubt that same sex couples also have that family base who support them, and will help out with the little (and big) challenges of growing kids.
As parents, our role is to nurture and teach, and above all else to protect, regardless of whether a child has two dads, two mums, a mum and a dad or a mum or a dad. The combination doesn't change that fact.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by 74Templar

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by spw184
>
Im gay and i know people who have fully functioning families with two same sex parents.

I'm straight and I know straight couples that are just so happy
until we found out otherwise

You don't know what goes on behind closed doors
I'm not at all suggesting they will do bad things to the child, please don't interpret that

But a baby needs a father figure and a mother figure

You know how many people living in ghettos complain of not having a fatherly role model?
How is a lesbian couple going to teach the kid to play fastball?
How is a lesbian couple going to teach a kid how to shave?

the list goes on and on
How would a father explain girls getting their periods to a little girl? She would feel so uncomfortable

and i'm only scratching the surface here


So how is that different from a single parent, of which there are many also? I have two daughters which I raise on my own with no mother figure. They seem to be working this stuff out on their own, especially the girl stuff, yet I try to help and teach them as much as I can. I admit as they get older some things may be a challenge, the period part and puberty I admit will be especially challenging, but luckily for me, I have family. I have a mother, father, sisters and brothers, etc, who will help me through as they always have.
It is of little doubt that same sex couples also have that family base who support them, and will help out with the little (and big) challenges of growing kids.
As parents, our role is to nurture and teach, and above all else to protect, regardless of whether a child has two dads, two mums, a mum and a dad or a mum or a dad. The combination doesn't change that fact.


I love how you said they are working it out on their own. i didn't have a strong fatherly figure, my dad really didn't do anything in my life and most the time he was at work so I never really saw him except for like 2 days a week if I was lucky. I taught myself to shave, went through the whole puberty thing myself, and all those other "Guy Things"

Although It may be benificial, you can get by without two diffsex parents



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by spw184

And than when we state that biology has proven that homosexuality starts in the womb, or maybe in DNA you do this:


Biology hasn't proven that. Some people "speculate" that the chemical conditions in the womb might be the cause of deviant behavior like homosexuality. They even "speculate" there is connection between early chemical environment and criminal behavior. So we can forecast who will become a criminal by studying the environment in the womb. It's all nonsense. It's "statistical" reports on questionable research, not duplicated by other scientists, so doesn't have the standing of "knowledge".

edit on 12-10-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)



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

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184

And than when we state that biology has proven that homosexuality starts in the womb, or maybe in DNA you do this:


Biology hasn't proven that. Some people "speculate" that the chemical conditions in the womb might be the cause of deviant behavior like homosexuality. They even "speculate" there is connection between early chemical environment and criminal behavior. So we can forecast who will become a criminal by studying the environment in the womb. It's all nonsense. It's "statistical" reports on questionable research, not duplicated by other scientists, so doesn't have the standing of "knowledge".

edit on 12-10-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)


And some people "Speculate" that:

- A woman was impregnated via a otherworldy spirit
- Big spirit was pissed so he destroyed an entire city and turned people to salt
- Two people started the earth, and the reason we are so smart is because we ate a fruit
- A big spirit told some dude to kill his son and than was all like "LOLZ JK JK JK"
- A big spirit flooded the entire earth and some dude made a ship big enough to store 2 of every animal on earth to date (These people dont beleive in evolution) and somehow survived even though a flood this size would easly capsize a wooden boat.
Thats just the beginning, in your own words:


It's all nonsense. It's "statistical" reports on questionable research, not duplicated by other scientists, so doesn't have the standing of "knowledge"


Lets change it up a little....



It's all nonsense. It's "spirtual" reports on questionable events that happened over 2k years ago, not proven or duplicated in a lab, and so it doesn't have the standing of "knowledge"

Also, it is a FACT that temperment is partly heredity. PROVEN FACT.
(The reason I say temperment is because criminal likeliness is almost identical to temperment)

Now, I feel assured that I can say: BOOM, ROASTED

I WIN



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 





I use objective knowledge in addition to subjectivity. When I say, the objective scientific biological knowledge of the human body indicates men and women are designed to bond together, but men and men are not,. it's purely objective, based on observable facts. There's no subjectivity there. When I say that GOD designed man this way, that could be argued to be my subjective inclusion in the discussion. Because I cannot "prove god" in the same way that I can "prove biological facts".


Exactly. This does nothing to back up your obnoxiousness. If anything it severely undermines your 'certainty'. If that is what it was 'designed for' then why are you being selective on that ideal? You are using a computer and the internet. You have likely flown in a plane. Maybe even taken anti- biotics or other medicine. Your statement shows no 'biological facts' about why it is 'bad' because you cannot do such a thing- it must be accepted that that is because of your religious belief.

The clichéd "lack of procreation" argument which I expect is similiarly void because of the reality of the situation- the percentile of humanity not breeding contains a huge array of people of which homosexuals make up only a small part. In fact, if any woman were to actually give birth after parthenogenesis they would of course be originally in this 'bad' group.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by yes4141
reply to post by DRAZIW
 





I use objective knowledge in addition to subjectivity. When I say, the objective scientific biological knowledge of the human body indicates men and women are designed to bond together, but men and men are not,. it's purely objective, based on observable facts. There's no subjectivity there. When I say that GOD designed man this way, that could be argued to be my subjective inclusion in the discussion. Because I cannot "prove god" in the same way that I can "prove biological facts".


Exactly. This does nothing to back up your obnoxiousness. If anything it severely undermines your 'certainty'. If that is what it was 'designed for' then why are you being selective on that ideal? You are using a computer and the internet. You have likely flown in a plane. Maybe even taken anti- biotics or other medicine. Your statement shows no 'biological facts' about why it is 'bad' because you cannot do such a thing- it must be accepted that that is because of your religious belief.


Its because he likes to "Pick and choose"



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by yes4141

Exactly. This does nothing to back up your obnoxiousness. If anything it severely undermines your 'certainty'. If that is what it was 'designed for' then why are you being selective on that ideal? You are using a computer and the internet. You have likely flown in a plane. Maybe even taken anti- biotics or other medicine. Your statement shows no 'biological facts' about why it is 'bad' because you cannot do such a thing- it must be accepted that that is because of your religious belief.


Golly, you want to believe so badly that it's ok to violate the design. Yes, god didn't give us wings, but we got around that and made our own metal wings to fly. HE also limited how far our voice could carry in the wind, but we got around that and now shout across the world via the internet. Sure, we're breaking all his design rules. So, why not break the copulation rule too? Go ahead and break the rule, just don't call it a marriage. That's all I say. We don't call the airplane a "bird", because its a new thing. We don't call the internet a "voice", because it's a new thing. So, give the new gay bonding a new name, and stop all the confusion already.

It's not a marriage, it's a "gay union".

It ain't right in the eyes of the Lord, it ain't intended in the biological design, but, hey, it can be done, so why not do it !

Animals next. We can bond with them too. Some people are very fond of animals. They are probably born that way.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by spw184


Its because he likes to "Pick and choose"


And you accept all things?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184


Its because he likes to "Pick and choose"


And you accept all things?



no, but unlike you, most the things I accept and reject are opposites.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by yes4141

Exactly. This does nothing to back up your obnoxiousness. If anything it severely undermines your 'certainty'. If that is what it was 'designed for' then why are you being selective on that ideal? You are using a computer and the internet. You have likely flown in a plane. Maybe even taken anti- biotics or other medicine. Your statement shows no 'biological facts' about why it is 'bad' because you cannot do such a thing- it must be accepted that that is because of your religious belief.


Golly, you want to believe so badly that it's ok to violate the design. Yes, god didn't give us wings, but we got around that and made our own metal wings to fly. HE also limited how far our voice could carry in the wind, but we got around that and now shout across the world via the internet. Sure, we're breaking all his design rules. So, why not break the copulation rule too? Go ahead and break the rule, just don't call it a marriage. That's all I say. We don't call the airplane a "bird", because its a new thing. We don't call the internet a "voice", because it's a new thing. So, give the new gay bonding a new name, and stop all the confusion already.

It's not a marriage, it's a "gay union".

It ain't right in the eyes of the Lord, it ain't intended in the biological design, but, hey, it can be done, so why not do it !

Animals next. We can bond with them too. Some people are very fond of animals. They are probably born that way.



Well my grandpa who was a WWII bomber always called planes "Birds", and goverment documents often discribe the internet as a voice.

Oh and also, These are PEOPLE not STRUCTURES, the same rules to not apply. Oh and also, Y u no respond to my last post? You know, the one that showed how 130% un-reliable you are?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by spw184

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184


Its because he likes to "Pick and choose"


And you accept all things?



no, but unlike you, most the things I accept and reject are opposites.


Ok. I get it. You reject women, because they are opposite. You accept men, because they are the same as you.

I happen to like my opposites. It completes me. I think accepting the differences is a good thing.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184


Its because he likes to "Pick and choose"


And you accept all things?



no, but unlike you, most the things I accept and reject are opposites.


Ok. I get it. You reject women, because they are opposite. You accept men, because they are the same as you.

I happen to like my opposites. It completes me. I think accepting the differences is a good thing.


I guess your right, I reject woman sexualy because I like men sexually. Deal with it.
And really, if you like opposites, and thing differences are a good thing, than we wouldnt be having this conversation.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by spw184


I guess your right, I reject woman sexualy because I like men sexually. Deal with it.



I don't have to deal with it. I am that I am.




And really, if you like opposites, and thing differences are a good thing, than we wouldnt be having this conversation.


That's the thing. Gay men like to think that they are "different". When in fact, they hate anything that is not the "same." And then they blame everyone around them for discriminating against them for being "different". They are one confused bunch.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184



And really, if you like opposites, and thing differences are a good thing, than we wouldnt be having this conversation.



That's the thing. Gay men like to think that they are "different". When in fact, they hate anything that is not the "same." And then they blame everyone around them for discriminating against them for being "different". They are one confused bunch.


Right now I AM confused, because that made no sense, sorry. rephrase pleaseZ?
edit on 13-10-2011 by spw184 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-10-2011 by spw184 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by spw184
 


o.o I dont know what happened there, so look deep



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





Animals next. We can bond with them too. Some people are very fond of animals. They are probably born that way.


This really does show a significant lack of individual thought. It is an entirely invalid comparison. You seem to just consider beastiality 'bad' without reasoning. I would say it was a bad thing to do because the animal cannot give informed consent like a person could. Not simply because society says it's taboo. Like you keep saying, we have free will, therefore the ability to choose who we have sex with- this totally contradicts your comparison.




That's the thing. Gay men like to think that they are "different"....
They are one confused bunch.


Wonderful that you believe yourself to be a macro psychologist who can assess significant amounts of people in one swift statement. You're so good at it that you can even do it whilst grossly misinformed!



Ok. I get it. You reject women, because they are opposite. You accept men, because they are the same as you. I happen to like my opposites. It completes me. I think accepting the differences is a good thing.


This sums you up. You try to claim reasoning and reality is fueling your beliefs, but vulgar, cheap, ad hominem attacks like this unmask you.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by yes4141

This really does show a significant lack of individual thought. It is an entirely invalid comparison. You seem to just consider beastiality 'bad' without reasoning.



I don't know if it's bad or good. It's bad for me. But, who am I to judge whether its bad for someone else?

They have a need, they fill their own need. I'm not trying to stand in their way. I'm just saying that it's not right to consider those other forms of "love" equal to the man+woman bond. It's not right to confuse the language, and confuse the kids, and mislead the innocent, and tell them that it's all the same thing.

It's not the same thing. Each type of "love" is different, and ought to be labeled differently.

Don't call a "spade" a "shoe".

In communist countries, they banned all names that distinguished between man and woman. You couldn't say Mr, or Miss, or Sir, or Master, etc..it was all "comrade". Well, comrade my foot, that's a man, and that's a woman. God made them male and female, not comrade and comrade. But, then again, communists didn't believe in God. So, it figures.




I would say it was a bad thing to do because the animal cannot give informed consent like a person could.


How do you know the animal cannot give informed consent? Did the animal run away. Did it bark or complain? Many animals have lots of intelligence. You call a dog, it comes. You tell it to fetch, it goes fetch. If the animal comes back for more love, then isn't that consent enough? What do you want from the animal? Paw prints?




Not simply because society says it's taboo. Like you keep saying, we have free will, therefore the ability to choose who we have sex with- this totally contradicts your comparison.


Exactly, we have free will. You can choose. But, you can't call it all the same thing.



Wonderful that you believe yourself to be a macro psychologist who can assess significant amounts of people in one swift statement.


Don't need to assess the people, only the "action". The people are different, they are individuals.

BUT, THEIR ACTION IS ALL THE SAME.

Not hard to figure that out.



You're so good


Yes, I am. Aren't I ?





at it that you can even do it whilst grossly misinformed!


The only misinformed, are those who don't understand what their private jewels are really there for.

They think it's for "recreation."



This sums you up. You try to claim reasoning and reality is fueling your beliefs, but vulgar, cheap, ad hominem attacks like this unmask you.


I have no mask. This is me. Pure and simple. There's no complexity. My beliefs are the right beliefs. I stand by everything I say. I don't expect everyone to understand my reasoning. But, why do you interpret any of this as "vulgar" ? That's a bit unexpected. After all, just mentioning homosexuality long ago was considered "vulgar". But, today, it's no different than saying "cheese". Times change, the vulgar becomes the norm, and we move on. But, keep different actions separate, label them separately, so we understand what we are talking about when we say "married".

To marry is to be blessed by God, and to become one flesh. Only man+woman can do that !









 
60
<< 50  51  52    54 >>

log in

join