"Gay Marriage" apparently not all it was cracked up to be, page 23
Pages: <<  20    21    22    23    24    25    26  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times


reply posted on 12-2-2012 @ 10:31 PM by knoledgeispower
Originally posted by SteveR
Originally posted by knoledgeispower
Homosexuals are not "launching a war of conquest on straight society" they are wanting the same rights and freedom as Heterosexuals because they are HUMAN just like Heterosexuals.


I have no doubt whatsoever that homosexuals are human, and worth every ounce as much dignity and respect as any other human being. The problem is not inherent in your sexuality, but in your behavior which truth be told has nothing to do with being gay, nada. The word "marriage" is not a human right - it is a social tradition of hetereosexual people. Indeed you should be granted the equivalent under a different name, but with the same legal weight. If you absolutely feel you require it to be called marriage, then it is not a rights problem, it is a respect problem. You simply do not respect other people. Trying to steal traditions from others by the force of law is not a good way to assert your identity and your rights, nor a good way to build mutual respect. You may be human but you are from a different culture of sexuality. What is wrong with creating your own traditions? Why must you protest that others have THEIR traditions. In my opinion, it is incredibly childish. Marriage (at least as far as the word goes) is NOT a human right or a human ritual - it is one for straight people. You wouldn't burst in on a Mosque and demand that Catholics have the right to pray in there... you would show some respect for their differences and attend your own church.

Originally posted by knoledgeispower
Gays are not incapable of childbearing. Ever heard of Surrogate Mothers who carry the egg/sperm of one of the couples or Sperm donors.


Yes, and it is called cheating nature out of sheer jealousy that life sides with heterosexuals. No thought whatsoever about the kid. No, it is all 'me me me'. Children aren't a right, nor should they be accessories of gay relationships, children are a privilege. The gay agenda has zero respect for this, as it does most things.

Originally posted by knoledgeispower
We are HUMANS TOO so we deserve to be treated like HUMANS too!


YOU ARE... you denied yourself marriage and kids ever since you came out gay. It is not everyone else's problem so stop making it such.

I agree children are not an accessory but there are lots of heterosexuals who have children who shouldn't and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a homosexual couple wanting a kid. They have every right to a kid and marriage if they want it. I'm sorry but it's completely b.s to say other wise. There are millions of kids out there who have no home and no one to love them so it's just better to leave them to suffer alone then to have a family of parents who love them, care for them, teach them humility, etc.

"the gay agenda" wow you are so homophobic its not even funny.

The problem is not inherent in your sexuality, but in your behavior which truth be told has nothing to do with being gay, nada.
Right because heterosexuals have amazing behavior. All your reasons for not wanting gays to be married or have kids is based on hate & ignorance. Some great behavior there, I'd hate to see what hatred you pass down to your children.

It is not everyone else's problem so stop making it such.
It is a problem, millions of people are being mistreated & murdered because millions of people, like you, are ignorant, intolerant and hateful. It's disgusting that any human being is mistreated because people, like you, think they are better then them. Just because something has been a certain way for a long time doesn't mean that is right and should stay that way. the Church has held society in a dogmatic way that held us back from being better people then we are today. Instead of caring for our fellow man, we kick him when he's down & live only for ourselves. We are a disgusting human race and people like you are only making it worse. Your kids will prob grow up to be hateful creatures just like where as my kids (which I'm bi sexual so I can have my own kids) will be humble creatures who help their fellow man. I hope you don't have kids.
.


reply posted on 13-2-2012 @ 05:10 PM by zerimar65
Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by hoochymama




So, your argument is about the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE for tax purposes and legal rights. Who made up the Tax Code and the Legal Rights?? The Bible or the Country you live in


Huh????

Only issue i have is with the terminology. The title, the label.

Marriage = man + woman

I'm not a religious person. However I do think that religion deserves some respect in certain aspects of society.
Marriage was developed through the church and was a religious ceremony.

If gays get married, then can I marry my dog? Can I marry my blow up doll? Can I marry my computer?



I happen to agree that marriage is between a man and a woman. A husband and a wife. But that really bugs me when people go from talking about gay people to bestiality or blow up dolls. Are you serious? Do you really think people would marry a dog? Do you want to marry your dog? Even though gay couples are the same sex, they're still people and not one step above bestiality. Besides, you're the one thinking about bestiality and I'm assuming you're straight.


reply posted on 13-2-2012 @ 05:24 PM by zerimar65
reply to post by MathiasAndrew


I doubt it was what God wanted. It was what YOU wanted. Then to dismiss it as it ran it's course. Oh great. I agree with the poster, why are the gays so dead set on calling it marriage? They can already have a civil union in some states, which is just like marriage just by a different name. It's not going to prevent them from telling people that they are married. But no, they have to have it officially called marriage. I find that ridiculous. So unless it's called marriage, the relationship and union is somehow diminished? Not if it's real.


reply posted on 13-2-2012 @ 05:43 PM by zerimar65
reply to post by MathiasAndrew


If the gays wanted to get married, they should have been born straight.



reply posted on 13-2-2012 @ 05:45 PM by Sigismundus
reply to post by zerimar65

Hi Zerimar 65 -

Your jejune comments smack of what is loosely described as 'Christian-fundamentalism' - although there is a wide variety of definitions as to what that exactly entails...!

If you ARE a 'Christian' or someone who purports to support the 'christian antiGay agenda' on the Gay Marriage Issue - then you would probably believe in the 'sanctity of Marriage' since R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (Gk. ho Iesous) seems to have placed a highly moral definition to the idea

But don't forget his sword cut two ways = i.e. NO divorce EVER and NO re-marriage EVER.

'In the Scroll of the book of Bereshth (Gen 2:24), does is not say, Male & female created he them in his own image and he called their name Adam - and therefore a man leaves his father and mother to be united to his wife, and they become one bone...' Therefore I say unto you, what the Most High has woven together into a single garment, let no son of man rip-apart : for whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits Adultery, [and must die the death..].'

Since after all the punishment for Adultery in 1st century Palestine (and from long before in the Levant) was death by stoning.

At least these are the rough sentiments of the Greek words that were placed into his mouth in the synoptic gospels - the first canonical Greek gospel ('according to Matthew' whoever he was)5:31-32, and in chapter 19 :1-12

See chapter 5:31-32, and in chapter 19 :1-12 ;

Also see the 2nd canonical Greek gospel ('according to Mark' whoever he was) chapter 10 ; also see the 3rd canonical Greek gospel ('according to Luke' whoever he was) chapter 16..

The same antiDivorce sentiments are echoed by Saul of Tarsus in 1 Corinthans 7:8-11

It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

"To married couples I give the command (but this command is actually not from me, but from the Lord himself) that a wife must NEVER EVER separate from her husband - but if she already has done so, she MUST remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband [as before'. Also a husband must NEVER EVER divorce his wife."

So it is fairly clear that if a person purporting to be a 'christian' who supports male-female only marriage on NT biblical grounds, he / she must NEVER EVER EVER EVER get a divorce and remarry. Period.

Now, how many persons do you think on this ATS thread who claim to be 'Christians' (whatever that means..) and are virulently ANTI GAY MARRIAGE because they think it is 'the Christian thing to be' - as if R. Yehoshua bar Yosef said anything at all about it (newsflash : he did NOT) - but are divorced?

Recent surveys (2011) show that over 54% of these self-same personages who claim to be 'bible believing Chrsitians' (margin of error on survey is 4%) to-day have been divorced at least once - and also are now re-married - despite what R. Yehoshua had to say on this issue -

See for example the notorious case of that arch- hypocrite 'Anita Bryant' who thought that homosexual acts (in her speeches from 1969-1983) were a 'sin against her god' - whoever she meant by that - probably YHWH the post-exilic clan-god of the Jews since she loved to quote passages (in English, since she cannot read paleoHebrew) from the book of Leveticus out of context - yet Anita had a bad habit of weating outfits made of BOTH cotton AND linen in the same ensemble - which of course is a BIG no-no according to the various verions of the mangled paleoHebrew texts of Leveticus ..in fact it.could get you stoned to death according to her 'god' ..

But no one to-day in the 'Funadamentalist Christian community' (whatever that means) dares speak a word against Anita-darling for her trashing (actually more like wiping her behind with) the words of her Lord.

Comments anyone ?


reply posted on 13-2-2012 @ 08:36 PM by sdcigarpig
reply to post by zerimar65

Not all in the USA are Christian, or desire to be such. There are many different faiths in this country, and all of them have points of view. Would one push that point of view on others, even when they do not want to believe such?

This was attempted many times in the past, when the ideology of one group was attempted to be pushed on to others. And in history it led to some of the most brutal and cruel treatments, all recorded fully.

The days of where religion is the law is long gone, we are now governed by laws, with the idea of equality and justice for all. Would we see such denied to one group, as it offends others, by their very nature? Looking back at history, there have been many times when one thing set off the nation, the calls of the fall of society cried out loudly. Fear is what spurred those calls, yet the country survived. Think about it what if those cries prevented the movement of society from going forward, then where would we be?
Several things come to mind, there would be multiple separate countries in the United States of America, where those who were white would be one, and all minorities would be each their own country. Separate laws, separate cites and towns, even separate neighborhoods. And what of music and the arts? Those too would have taken a different direction, do you like artists like say Percy Faith or Pat Boone, or are you more the Beech Boys, Beetles, Elvis, and other groups? After all when they were first brought onto the scene, the majority decried them as immoral and not music, and the down fall of society.

This is the growth of society, change, and as most have shown, it is that change that the majority always fears, it fears it and decries it, even when it is right and within the very ideas of the law.


reply posted on 13-2-2012 @ 09:51 PM by KwisatzHaderach
reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Sir your views are obviously skewed. Besides the fact that marriage in and of itself is an idiotic idea, marriage means the union of two individuals inexplicably tying themselves together for all eternity. How you got off onto the tangent of animals is beyond me, but is thoroughly disgusting. The reason a sexual union with animals is not allowed is due to the harm it causes animals. If one is so sexually pent up to need to fornicate with animals to release, then maybe one should look into a sex toy ( male or female) and some pornography.
Pages: <<  20    21    22    23    24    25    26  >>    ^^TOP^^