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.

 

Gay marriage is not a 'human right': European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

reply to post by Garfee
 




You are a scum bag if you think you can be hateful like that in a public forum and get away with it.


I'm being hateful ?

As you call me a scumbag.



It's comments like that which lead me to state this




IMO some of the gay marriage advocates behave like disrespectful, spoiled children with a very disturbing sense of self entitlement and lack of self control.



So it's OK for you to speak "hate speech" directed at me because you think what I said is hate speech and you are against hate speech?

Hello, Mr. no self control, hypocrite

What a joke.
edit on 21-3-2012 by SteelToe because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2012 by SteelToe because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
I don't think any form of marriage is a human right. I think the state should be allowed to bond same sex couples through civil unions and churches should have the option to marry them.


I couldn't agree more, seems the "heart" of this issue seems to lead back to the Church, more than anything, having the "option" of marrying couples that don't represent the values of that church. I can't even imagine WHY any couple would want to start out thier lives together being married in a church that believes homosexuality, pregnancy before marriage, etc. the list goes on, is wrong?

The last time I was in church was about a year ago for my Catholic Italian Grandma's funeral, the whole thing was so surreal, flying from CA, back East, snowstorm, really my first ever. Have been to the snow, but this was really different. lol, anyways......

The point is, I do have a certain respect, and even a sense of the "eeby jeebies" when I go into churches that are in conflict with many of my personal beliefs, I'm respectful. go with the flow unless it makes me uncomfortable, then I just lay low...lol

A lovely wedding / union celebration surrounded by family and friends. Being in Love is a "precious" gift and I say getting married in nature is the Best church ever! The possibilities are endless, and it seems to me being married in a "sacred" place that does not consider your union "sacred" is a problem?! lol, I hope that makes sense?

ok, ok, sooo, I got married on a cliff, marriage didn't last, and Grandma "trucked" her way up that hike to the cliff, bless her soul, Had I been gay and asked her to participate in a church wedding it would have hurt her I think. For that reason I see this as a seperation of Church and State issue.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by My_Reality


I agree with this ruling. Marriage, since the dawn of civilization, has been a sacred bond between a man and a woman with specific goals. Loving another human being is not the only consideration in a marriage. Marriage also is intended to create a family, specifically through the act of a male and female making love to do so. It also serves to promote harmony and cooperation between families and communities.


Some other goals for marriage have been: for political gain, monetary gain, and property gain. And those were all heterosexual marriages. Something to be proud of, no?

There are many marriages that do not create families. Do you want to ban all marriages, including heterosexual ones, that do not involve procreation? Can you not have harmony and cooperation between families and communities with gay marriages as well?


I have tried so very hard to compromise with gay marriage advocates. I can offer them every single "legal" benefit of marriage, including the option to adopt children or the option to use technology to impregnate a female/female couple. There is only one area where I ask these gay marriage advocates to compromise. I ask them to not call what they want marriage. I am content with them using any form of classification they wish, excluding marriage, to describe their union.


Well, how sanctimonious of you. If a church is willing to marry two gays in a ceremony and pronounce them married in the eyes of God (and there ARE churches who are happy to do this), who are you to tell them they can't call it a marriage?

Why aren't the religious right up in arms about atheists (or pagans or wiccans or satanists) being able to get a marriage license and call their union a marriage, as they have been able to do since marriage licenses have been around? These guys are about as anti-sacred as you can get, right? But I hear no uproar about this.


Perhaps someone can explain to me why gay marriage advocates are so fanatical about having their union described as a marriage?


Why are you so fanatical about having their union be called something else? How does it affect you or your marriage in any way? How does it hurt you? Is your marriage not strong enough to handle gays calling their union a marriage? Why should gays call their union something other than marriage, when there are churches who will pronounce them married in the eyes of God?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
People try to hide their perversion under the guise of marriage. Come on get off it. Marriage was,is and always will be for a man and a woman.Practise your perversion if you want but please go back in the closet to do it. I do not want to se it!



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ronnieray
People try to hide their perversion under the guise of marriage. Come on get off it. Marriage was,is and always will be for a man and a woman.Practise your perversion if you want but please go back in the closet to do it. I do not want to se it!


Even pedophiles and rapists are able to get married, as long as they are heterosexual. Shouldn't gays be able to, as long as they are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of the state?

Please tell me which gays fighting for equality in marriage have demanded that you watch them have sex.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Will someone define 'Human Rights'

You speciest bastards....


What about the reptiles? Should the be allowed to marry normal humans...


You a Star Trek Fan, speciest...

Means you think Spock is an affront to the human race... or did you like the character....

I play the hippocrit card here quiet proudly... I CALL

You do not get to claim racism when some disagrees with the o-man... or tries to make cash with the re-nig thing in the news....

Then turn around and try to say well the institution of marriage is XY or Z

So far the human race has had some pretty jacked up institutions..

Nazi Party
Communist Party of Stalins
KKK
Slavery
JIhads

Do I need to go on... quoting institutions sanctity is no defense... Himmler felt the same way...

I am laughing having been accused so long of being Conservative, I can play the liberal cards right back...

Let us look at a specific form of this part of history

remember when it was against the law for a white person to marry a black person... take out all your arguments with this.... take out gay add in interracial...

Does this make those that oppose this racist... after all whats good for the goose is good for the gander... should interracial couples be forced to only accept civil unions?

Separate but equal? that is what the moderate consensus is....

the crime you say is going on here is basically

Miscegenation



Miscegenation (/mɪˌsɛdʒɨˈneɪʃən/, from the Latin miscere "to mix" + genus "kind") is the mixing of different racial groups through marriage, cohabitation, sexual relations, and procreation.[1]

The term miscegenation has been used since the 19th century to refer to interracial marriage and interracial sex,[1] and more generally to the process of racial admixture, which has taken place since ancient history. The term entered historical records during European colonialism and the Age of Discovery, but societies such as China and Japan also had restrictions on marrying with peoples they considered to be of a different race. Historically the term has been used in the context of laws banning interracial marriage and sex, so-called anti-miscegenation laws. Currently the use of the phrase is considered offensive.[2]


So what is the Argument here...

And what is a human right Speciest... (live long and prosper)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 





Please tell me which gays fighting for equality in marriage have demanded that you watch them have sex.


Equality means equal not identical.

Equivalence would be civil unions.

Redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships is not about equality.

It's about homosexuals trying to force society to accept behavior that has not been considered publicly acceptable. If this were about equality then civil unions would solve the issue.

Also there is a difference between acceptance and promotion. Society is willing to accept gay lifestyles but it is not willing to be forced to promote those lifestyles as being "normal".

Gay marriage supporters and gay rights advocates want children to be taught about gay relationships in schools. This causes confusion in children who have not even begun puberty. Then gender roles, masculine and feminine begin to further become blurred and we get a whole generation of emo sissy boys and aggressive man hating girls.

Kids will be exposed to sexual issues at younger and younger ages due to having to answer and explain all the question that arise from their confusion. Other groups like polygamists will be correct in using the same arguments that gay marriage supporters use. They will demand their right to have their "marriages" recognized by the State.

People who do not agree with gay marriage will be forced to support and contribute to it's promotion in schools and the public campaign for acceptance. People will lose respect for themselves for having to silence their own beliefs and morals for the sake of political correctness.

I guarantee this will backfire if the gay community tries to push it's agenda on society too hard. Society will strike back eventually. This ruling proves it.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteelToe

Equality means equal not identical.

Equivalence would be civil unions.

Redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships is not about equality.

It's about homosexuals trying to force society to accept behavior that has not been considered publicly acceptable. If this were about equality then civil unions would solve the issue.


Blacks were allowed to ride the same bus as whites - only they were expected to sit in the back. It was not publicly acceptable for blacks to have the same privileges as whites. Blacks, such as Martin Luther King, worked hard to get society to treat blacks in a way that was not previously considered publicly acceptable. It took much patience and persistence, but it worked.

You could substitute "gays", "straights", gay marriage", and "civil unions" in the above paragraph, and it's the same issue. Even though everyone gets to sit on the same bus, making gays sit at the back, while the straights get to sit in the front, is NOT equality. If there are churches willing to marry gays in the name of God, they have just as much right to call it a marriage as anyone else.


Also there is a difference between acceptance and promotion. Society is willing to accept gay lifestyles but it is not willing to be forced to promote those lifestyles as being "normal".


Who is forcing anyone to "promote" anything? Gays are not demanding that heteros show up at their wedding ceremony and cheer them down the altar. Heteros don't have to be involved - AT ALL.


Gay marriage supporters and gay rights advocates want children to be taught about gay relationships in schools. This causes confusion in children who have not even begun puberty. Then gender roles, masculine and feminine begin to further become blurred and we get a whole generation of emo sissy boys and aggressive man hating girls.


So now, you are exposing your true homophobic nature here. I'm glad it has finally come out. You are scared that gays are trying to turn everyone into gays (eye roll). First of all, no one is advocating telling/showing elementary school children the specifics of gay sex. Second, to tell a child that there are many different non-traditional families that exist (single parent, adopted kids, being raised by grandparents, two mommies, two daddies, etc.) is NOT going to confuse gender roles. Third, the schools I have seen that are including this as part of a curriculum have an opt-out for the homophobic parents. Fourth, there have been studies showing that children raised by gays do not have any higher tendency of becoming gay than children raised by heterosexuals. So, you can relax.


I guarantee this will backfire if the gay community tries to push it's agenda on society too hard. Society will strike back eventually. This ruling proves it.


I predict a gay marriage case will eventually hit the U.S. Supreme Court. If they agree to rule on it, I feel strongly that the SC will rule that it is unconstitutional to deny two consenting adults who are citizens of the state, the right to receive a marriage license from the state, as the state is a secular entity and not a religious entity.

The South didn't like having to give up slavery. They fought back, and they lost. The homophobes will lose as well.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 





Blacks were allowed to ride the same bus as whites - only they were expected to sit in the back. It was not publicly acceptable for blacks to have the same privileges as whites. Blacks, such as Martin Luther King, worked hard to get society to treat blacks in a way that was not previously considered publicly acceptable. It took much patience and persistence, but it worked.


This again is despicable. You trying to use the race card again and again. This has nothing to due with race. Gays are not forced to drink from different water fountains, they are not being forced to sit on the back of the bus. All you drama and false hysteria does not apply to gay marriage issues. Comparing gay marriage to slavery is a totally bogus argument.




You could substitute "gays", "straights", gay marriage", and "civil unions" in the above paragraph, and it's the same issue. Even though everyone gets to sit on the same bus, making gays sit at the back, while the straights get to sit in the front, is NOT equality. If there are churches willing to marry gays in the name of God, they have just as much right to call it a marriage as anyone else.


No it's not the same issue, not even close and it's an insult to Mr King that you want to portray yourself and homosexuals as being some kind of martyrs to human rights. Marriage is not a human rights issue. Did you read the OP ?





Who is forcing anyone to "promote" anything? Gays are not demanding that heteros show up at their wedding ceremony and cheer them down the altar. Heteros don't have to be involved - AT ALL.


By legalizing gay marriage it would force the government to use tax dollars to create an awareness and acceptance campaign. This is actually the same as promoting it. The only way to teach tolerance and acceptance is by "normalizing" the behavior and removing any negative elements from the discussion.




So now, you are exposing your true homophobic nature here. I'm glad it has finally come out. You are scared that gays are trying to turn everyone into gays (eye roll).


Again shame on you for trying to pull the same old cliche catch phrase and calling me homophobic. It's your little way of trying to insult me and others without breaking the T&C.





First of all, no one is advocating telling/showing elementary school children the specifics of gay sex.


OK so no specifics of gay sex acts taught in schools. But we should teach kids in elementary school about gay relationships?


Kids already understand all kinds of "Love" between people. They love their mommy, they love their daddy. they love grandma and their puppy. They tell their friends they love them on Valentines Day. By introducing gay and homosexual behaviors their is no way to avoid the subject of sex. That is what defines homosexual behavior.




Second, to tell a child that there are many different non-traditional families that exist (single parent, adopted kids, being raised by grandparents, two mommies, two daddies, etc.) is NOT going to confuse gender roles.


Yes it is.




Third, the schools I have seen that are including this as part of a curriculum have an opt-out for the homophobic parents.


Shame on you again for insult people who do not agree with you. Not all people who disagree with you are homophobic. Show have shown your true colors and obvious agenda of wanting to teach kids about gay sex.



Fourth, there have been studies showing that children raised by gays do not have any higher tendency of becoming gay than children raised by heterosexuals. So, you can relax.


I'm not worried one bit. You are the one who needs to relax. Show me the studies. You've proven yourself to be biased so I do not feel your statements reflect the truth.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SteelToe
 


ok how is it any different then any of the other propaganda in schools now... What does gayness being taught in school have to do with gay marriage as a human right...

Are you suggesting we teach a class on human ignorance and stupidity... an eight year course..

School propaganda immersion is a different topic... but since we are discussing speciest issues here as it applies to gay rights...

Have you ever trained anyone before?

I will assume not... allow me to share some of my experience...

1) you have to know the metrics of the material you are teaching

so what are the metrics of being an American?

Are Rights movements any part of this history?

What does it take for a self mobile bipedal American to be able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness?



These are what the (*&^ metric points should not be based on... Not the crap, the liberalconservatism movement wants...

These are few of the classes as they should be

You teach religion... All of them
You teach languages... at least five of them
You teach computer science.. All twelve years
You teach history as it happened...not the revisionist garbage being taught..
You Teach Mathematics... with Calculus (four years of worth)
You teach the world religions... all of them
You teach survival skills... four years worth
You teach each of the sciences... enough to qualify for associates of the sciences

Student athletes required to pass all classes with 3.0, or they dont play


btw, news flash you pay for the propaganda already...

edit on 21-3-2012 by ripcontrol because: shhh your future employer is reading your post



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
**ATTENTION**

Please discuss the topic, not each other. As well a friendly reminder to not reply to posts you have alerted, it sort of defeats the purpose.

Further T&C violations will result in a loss of posting privileges. Up to and including a review of your account by staff, for repeat offenders.

Thank You.

~Tenth
ATS Moderator



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ronnieray
People try to hide their perversion under the guise of marriage. Come on get off it. Marriage was,is and always will be for a man and a woman.Practise your perversion if you want but please go back in the closet to do it. I do not want to se it!


What is this "perversion" that you equate with gay marriage?

When you see a happy straight couple getting married, do you obsess about their sex life and what they do in private? If not, then why worry about what a gay couple may do in private? Regardless of your answer, what they do behind closed doors is none of your business, and if you're obsessing about what they're doing, then I'd say that YOU were the perverted one for fantasizing about it.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteelToe

This has nothing to due with race. Gays are not forced to drink from different water fountains, they are not being forced to sit on the back of the bus. All you drama and false hysteria does not apply to gay marriage issues. Comparing gay marriage to slavery is a totally bogus argument.


It has to do with discrimination. Gays have been forced into the closet for many, many years. They have been bullied, beaten, shunned, and even killed - because they are gay. This is discrimination, and it is WRONG. Slowly, but surely, people are starting to become aware that this is wrong. It is VERY similar to the discrimination of blacks. Gays, and others fighting for equality for gays, are starting to have an effect on the discrimination. Gay marriage is just one part of this fight.


Marriage is not a human rights issue. Did you read the OP ?


Getting a marriage license is a CIVIL RIGHT.



By legalizing gay marriage it would force the government to use tax dollars to create an awareness and acceptance campaign. This is actually the same as promoting it. The only way to teach tolerance and acceptance is by "normalizing" the behavior and removing any negative elements from the discussion.


Can you show an example of the states that have allowed gay marriage spending tax dollars on an awareness and acceptance campaign? I read an article recently that said the state of Massachusetts actually gained more in revenue from marriage licenses purchased by gays. Sounds like that state actually profited from legalizing gay marriage.



By introducing gay and homosexual behaviors their is no way to avoid the subject of sex. That is what defines homosexual behavior.


Saying that someone may have two mommies does not define sexual behavior to a child any more than saying someone has a mommy and a daddy. We adults know that mommies and daddies have sex, but little kids don't really know it. Same thing with two mommies. All they are doing is establishing the fact that there are all kinds of families out there. No sexual activity needs to be discussed.




Shame on you again for insult people who do not agree with you. Not all people who disagree with you are homophobic. Show have shown your true colors and obvious agenda of wanting to teach kids about gay sex.


The fact that you don't like my terminology doesn't change the fact that an opt-out for this curriculum exists.



I'm not worried one bit. You are the one who needs to relax. Show me the studies. You've proven yourself to be biased so I do not feel your statements reflect the truth.



Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths. Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.


www.webmd.com...


What happens to kids raised by gay parents? Research suggests that they turn out about the same, no better, no worse and no more likely to be gay than other kids


old.post-gazette.com...


As a group, the children of lesbians did not differ from children of heterosexual mothers in their social adjustment or their identity as a boy or a girl, Dr. Gottman found. The children of lesbians were no more likely to be homosexual than those of heterosexual mothers.


www.nytimes.com...


edit on 21-3-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Vixen~

Originally posted by ronnieray
People try to hide their perversion under the guise of marriage. Come on get off it. Marriage was,is and always will be for a man and a woman.Practise your perversion if you want but please go back in the closet to do it. I do not want to se it!


What is this "perversion" that you equate with gay marriage?

When you see a happy straight couple getting married, do you obsess about their sex life and what they do in private? If not, then why worry about what a gay couple may do in private? Regardless of your answer, what they do behind closed doors is none of your business, and if you're obsessing about what they're doing, then I'd say that YOU were the perverted one for fantasizing about it.


Exactly. ronnnieray seems to be scared of seeing something he/she spends a fair amount of time thinking about!



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 





It has to do with discrimination. Gays have been forced into the closet for many, many years. They have been bullied, beaten, shunned, and even killed - because they are gay. This is discrimination, and it is WRONG.


I agree that ANYONE being killed, bullied or beaten is wrong.

People being shunned happens for all kinds of reasons.

But this is another red herring, a false argument that does not apply to gay marriage.

There is no violation of civil rights here. You keep ignoring the fact that homosexuals can have a civil union with the same equal rights of married couples.
edit on 21-3-2012 by SteelToe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteelToe

There is no violation of civil rights here. You keep ignoring the fact that homosexuals can have a civil union with the same equal rights of married couples.


I will say this again: if there are churches that will marry gays in the eyes of God, then they deserve to get a marriage license like anyone else. To tell them that they can't, is discriminating against them because of their sexual orientation. To allow atheists to get a marriage license, but not allow gays to get a marriage license, is discrimination against gays. You are violating civil rights when you discriminate against a specific group.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join