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.

 

Why Are So Many People Debating About Gay Marriages? You've All Got It All Wrong!

page: 17
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruckDriver69
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


In other words you can't defend your position and you need to resort to ridicule and mockery.
You gays are so predictable in your effort to spread your religion of hate and intolerance but at the first sign of opposition you resort to primitive, (not childish) but primitive attacks to win what?



Do you ever read your own posts?




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by BiggerPicture

Originally posted by newsoul

Originally posted by BiggerPicture

So homosexuals are akin to dominatrixes now, too?

You're full of it, plain and simple.


Did I say that homosexuals are akin to dominatrixes??? No I don't believe that I did.


Umm, how did you miss the question mark, and the question?

I am asking up front if you can relate an dominatrix (who provides sexual domination) to what you are accusing the homosexual act as being usually for. It seems that IS what you are insinuating, otherwise mention homosexuality in animals if for dominance. If it is for dominance, then it is NOT "sexuality" (duh) and likewise it would be a leap of (ill) fate to even indirectly (cough) reduce gays to throbbing members craving to dominate another, and.or quivering buttocks yearning to be dominated, sodomized. Is the human homosexual orientation mostly about animalistic sex acts? If that's the case then what purpose would gays be seeking, fighting for, their right to MARRY their loved one?!?

But, I digress - as I do see now you are full of it, semantics and all.

May your progeny grow wiser than you ever did!




I don't know which part of this you aren't getting. I said in ANIMAL behavior. Animals often eat their young, engage in cannibalism and homosexuality as a means of domination. I also said I "think" we as humans are above these animalistic behaviors. Now it is obvious that you have not read this entire thread or you would know that the reason I brought this up is because another poster was using animal behavior as a means to justify homosexuality. If animals eat their young and engage in cannibalism, are these also things that we have to look forward to in humans?? By their logic, yes.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
LOL Im not going to bother quoting comments because its just incredibly illogical and self-servient what some have to say against marriage.

So far in the thread the worst train of thought I just noticed was:

marriage should be for procreation but if the couple are infertile, its perfectly okay...

as long as its not a same-sex couple



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Oh and why are people going off-topic to dwell on animals?

Do animals marry?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by newsoul
 


"I also said I "think" we as humans are above these animalistic behaviors. Now it is obvious that you have not read this entire thread or you would know that the reason I brought this up is because another poster was using animal behavior as a means to justify homosexuality. If animals eat their young and engage in cannibalism, are these also things that we have to look forward to in humans?? By their logic, yes. "


the only reason i brought that up is because you said homosexuality was unnatural and against the universe,,,, my argument was simply that animals are natural, and exhibit homosexual behavior...



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Homosexuality and being gay are two different things, aren't they? Especially when comparing apples to oranges I mean animals to humans.

And even within humans:

Some studies suggest 60-70% of "straight" American males have had at least one homosexual encounter in their lifetime.

Obviously, 60-70% of American men are not GAY are they?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Gay marriage is not a right, and neither is a straight marriage....period!


Exactly, it's not about marriage it's about if they should get the same govt benefits or not.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by newsoul

I knew what your answer would be, I have heard it countless times. I am not being intolerant. Everyone in this country has the sames rights to marry. Husband and wife. Male and female. If they choose not to accept that right that is their decision. They want special rights. They want the books wiped clean and to make new laws and enact new ordinances especially for them.

I haven't taken away anyones right to happiness. Homosexuals have as much chance at happiness as anyone else. There are many, many, many straight couples who have found happiness outside of marriage. I wonder how that can be so, apparently the only way for a homosexual couple to be happy is through marriage.

It is natural in the universe for male and female to procreate to further the species. Males alone or females alone can not do that. There are times when a heterosexual couple, for whatever reason can not procreate, but that doesn't go against nature, sometimes things just don't work out for them. Sometimes they choose not to bring children into this world, but could if they wanted too. Homosexuals can not bring children into this world without outside help.
Also, my children are perfectly aware of who I am, what I believe and that I am not a hurtful person. They understand that you can disagree with someone and still love them. I don't appreciate your condescending attitude, you need not worry or pray for my children.


They had to make special rights to allow interracial marriages, but I guess you are against those too?

Of course, there are many gays who aren't interested in marriage, just like many heterosexuals. But heterosexuals can marry who they love if they want to -- gays do not have that choice.

Humans go against the natural laws of the universe all the time. It goes against nature for us to beat diseases that infect us. Disease is nature's way of curbing the population, so we go against the natural laws when we take advantage of medical advancements. It goes against nature for man to fly, so every time we fly in an airplane, we go against the natural laws of the universe. Just because someone may use outside help to conceive a child, it doesn't mean the world will go to hell in a handbasket.

Just because two gay people get married, it doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of heterosexuals out there procreating. The world is not going to end because a minority of the population is gay, just like the world hasn't ended because a minority of the heterosexual population can't/won't have children.

And yes, you are being intolerant - you're just not willing to admit it. If you were tolerant, you would say "live and let live, if they aren't hurting anybody, let them get married." THAT is tolerance.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I think the churches and governments being against gay marriage has to do with control. If you have a group that is ok with changing the standards of one thing, they may be ok with changing other things. They may go against the status quo. They may start to think, "Hey, we can make up our own minds about these things, we don't need the church/government to tell us what is good or bad" GASP!! People thinking for themselves? I think it's stupid that two people who love each have to have a piece of paper that says it ok, anyway. It boils down to the PTB saying "It's alright for you to take care of each other, but only because we say so."



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Actually, no, I am not opposed to interacial marriage between a man and a woman. You need to stop trying to fit me into that box.

Also, according to your logic, we should all just lay down and die when we get sick. Ridiculous. Why, if we have the means, would we not heal ourselves??

Flying? It's called technology and has nothing to do with the laws of the nature. Nature did not dictate that we would never fly. We do not have wings, but we have knowledge.

Speaking of intolerance. I believe that you are being intolerant to my beliefs. It is a paradox.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by newsoul
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Actually, no, I am not opposed to interacial marriage between a man and a woman. You need to stop trying to fit me into that box.


Interracial marriage was banned in most states. It took a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to remove those bans. Wording was added to an amendment to allow interracial marriage in all states. You don't call that "special rights"? Funny enough, many people were against interracial marriage because they felt it went against the "laws of nature". The different races evolved on different continents, so it was argued that they weren't meant to mix. So, you're ok with going against that natural law.


Also, according to your logic, we should all just lay down and die when we get sick. Ridiculous. Why, if we have the means, would we not heal ourselves??

Flying? It's called technology and has nothing to do with the laws of the nature. Nature did not dictate that we would never fly. We do not have wings, but we have knowledge.


There are no pills in nature. There are no airplanes in nature. There is no in vitro fertilization in nature. We can use pills to cure our diseases. We can use airplanes to make us fly. We can use in vitro fertilization to help us have children. A woman can be injected with a gay man's sperm in order to have his child. What's wrong with any of those things?


Speaking of intolerance. I believe that you are being intolerant to my beliefs. It is a paradox.


I am intolerant of prejudice and discrimination. I am intolerant of racism, sexism and homophobia. Since your beliefs fall under one or more of those categories, then yes, you could say I was intolerant. But I believe in your (and everyone elses') right to love who you want, to marry who you want, with all the same rights attached to that as everyone else. Too bad you can't say the same.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I don't agree with you and if you want to call me intolerant or racist (which I am not) or sexist, you have every right to do that. It's called free speech, and I support it.

Apparently you do not agree with free speech and think that I should be sensored for sharing my personal opinion.

I have stated that I am not opposed to interacial marriage between a man and a woman, and I do not feel that it goes against the laws of nature.

There are herbal supplements in nature that have extreme healing properties.
Technology is amazing.

I am not prejudice toward any group of people. I do not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. I do not harbor hostility or hatred toward them. I do not believe that any group should be allowed special rights over another group. How is that prejudice??



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Its false teaching of the bible by the pharisees who use the bible to control people rather than educate them. Anyone try going to church AFTER reading the bible cover to cover? Either you didn't comprehend your reading or you were already brainwashed. Its a problem of biblical proportion. The movie, The Book of Eli demonstrated that concept quite well I thought. Her's the trailer:




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by newsoul
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I don't agree with you and if you want to call me intolerant or racist (which I am not) or sexist, you have every right to do that. It's called free speech, and I support it.

Apparently you do not agree with free speech and think that I should be sensored for sharing my personal opinion.

I have stated that I am not opposed to interacial marriage between a man and a woman, and I do not feel that it goes against the laws of nature.

There are herbal supplements in nature that have extreme healing properties.
Technology is amazing.

I am not prejudice toward any group of people. I do not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. I do not harbor hostility or hatred toward them. I do not believe that any group should be allowed special rights over another group. How is that prejudice??



Have I ever said you should be censored?? This is a debate. Speak all you want. I will have a counter-argument for all your arguments.

Older generations did believe that interracial marriages went against natural laws. Younger generations (such as yourself) don't really believe that anymore. Polls tell us that more and more of today's younger generation are becoming accepting of gays, and are fine with gay marriage. Trust me, future generations will wonder what all the fuss was about regarding gay marriage.

How does allowing gay marriage give them special rights over another group? That statement implies that another group's rights are being taken away in order to allow gay marriage. How is that happening? Merriam-Webster's definition of prejudice is -" the injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregards of one's rights." How is your belief against gays' right to marry who they love NOT prejudice?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by newsoul
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I don't agree with you and if you want to call me intolerant or racist (which I am not) or sexist, you have every right to do that. It's called free speech, and I support it.

Apparently you do not agree with free speech and think that I should be sensored for sharing my personal opinion.

I have stated that I am not opposed to interacial marriage between a man and a woman, and I do not feel that it goes against the laws of nature.

There are herbal supplements in nature that have extreme healing properties.
Technology is amazing.

I am not prejudice toward any group of people. I do not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. I do not harbor hostility or hatred toward them. I do not believe that any group should be allowed special rights over another group. How is that prejudice??



Have I ever said you should be censored?? This is a debate. Speak all you want. I will have a counter-argument for all your arguments.

Older generations did believe that interracial marriages went against natural laws. Younger generations (such as yourself) don't really believe that anymore. Polls tell us that more and more of today's younger generation are becoming accepting of gays, and are fine with gay marriage. Trust me, future generations will wonder what all the fuss was about regarding gay marriage.

How does allowing gay marriage give them special rights over another group? That statement implies that another group's rights are being taken away in order to allow gay marriage. How is that happening? Merriam-Webster's definition of prejudice is -" the injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregards of one's rights." How is your belief against gays' right to marry who they love NOT prejudice?



Right on!

On a "secular level", the US constitution, mathmatics, science, these things don't discriminate. Religion/sex? Well people get political about it. The problem with politics is poli=many and tics are like fleas. In other words making secular law beyond a set of individual rights actually ends up a prohibition of the freedom to even have a religion and instead becomes a system of slavery. THAT's why I for one consider the US constitution to be an inspired work, similar to E=mc^2. Expressing faith at church in the USA? yea right - that doesn't say much. Saying it after reading the bible and a bunch of other books at the risk of your life while opposing churches to say gays are PEOPLE with RIGHTs? Well that's having a religion that just might get you killed, or bullied, or hated, or banned, or...
edit on 4/4/2012 by reitze because: +beyond a set of individual


++

Originally posted by newsoul
I don't know which part of this you aren't getting. I said in ANIMAL behavior. Animals often eat their young, engage in cannibalism and homosexuality as a means of domination. I also said I "think" we as humans are above these animalistic behaviors. Now it is obvious that you have not read this entire thread or you would know that the reason I brought this up is because another poster was using animal behavior as a means to justify homosexuality. If animals eat their young and engage in cannibalism, are these also things that we have to look forward to in humans?? By their logic, yes.


Yea sure we're animals. And yea "we've" eaten our young. Its still happening in places like N Korea and other locations where extreme poverty and starvation happens.

For what its worth, the "biblical" quotes used to assert the concept of gay being a problem is actually misquoting an poorly worded recommendation against sex-questing. But even sex-questing is part of how some children are raised and the painful state some individuals are stuck with. yea, i've been there...

before reading the book and before having a better understanding of this world, having felt sooo isolated and alone that anyone willing to "be" with me was either a thrill or a comfort. I'm glad to have outgrown that and would offer kindness and support to anyone in that condition rather than hatred. Also appologies to the women of my past. As for sex-workers? Well, who told you you were naked anyway? Gen 3:11.

If salvation is for the gentiles, then its for the sex workers and gays too - and if they read the book like I did the effects on their life may be a process more than a "born again" thing. The key IMHO is that we're all individuals. And sure some like to be told what to do - hoping to find the best leaders, and MANY end up in jail after following psychopaths. Thus I pray for those who've not read the book, and those who've read it but haven't resolved all of their personal "issues". And espcially point out the word "personal".
edit on 4/4/2012 by reitze because: ++

edit on 4/4/2012 by reitze because: fix 2nd quote



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
You bring up good points, points steeped in logic and rationality. But the world is not that, and neither is it an enigmatic process devised by pragmatic technocrats. Shamefully, we all know the truth, the heart of the matter that no one dare speak its name.

This is but the bitterness of men, who fear the way of human progress.

But hatred fades and demagogues die.

The power they took from the people, will return to the people.

And so long as men die, liberty shall never perish.


edit on 4-4-2012 by Anon009 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ezwip

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Gay marriage is not a right, and neither is a straight marriage....period!


Exactly, it's not about marriage it's about if they should get the same govt benefits or not.


You're wrong.

It's about knowing you are bound to your partner and that the partnership has been officiated.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by ezwip

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Gay marriage is not a right, and neither is a straight marriage....period!


Exactly, it's not about marriage it's about if they should get the same govt benefits or not.


You're wrong.

It's about knowing you are bound to your partner and that the partnership has been officiated.


What good is "officiated" when the [many expletives come to mind
] officials are corrupt?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 


The system still exists. It's hardly perfect but it's what we have for now.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by reitze
 

The system still exists. It's hardly perfect but it's what we have for now.


And gay people have their own ceremonies too. That's not the problem. The problem is sanctimonious religious "pharisees" manipulating governments to make REAL expressions of faith and religion IMPOSSIBLE.

Its become so out of touch that kids my kid's age are refusing marriage because its unfair and thus a discriminatory act in and of itself. And yea I have a bit of guilt in having the piece of paper when others can't have one.

Smell that for "destruction of marriage". In the name of Jesus marriage has become a statement of authority rather than a blessing shared. Its become analogous to a statement of racism. Like the OP said, govt needs to get out of marriage while there still is such a thing.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join