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.

 

North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

page: 25
21
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
And, if two people want to get "married" in a church, so be it. They can call it a "marriage". If two gays want to find someone will "marry" them, so be it. They can consider themselves "married".



There are many gay Christians who want both legal government marriage and a church wedding in the eyes of their God.

There are many Christian churches willing to marrying them.

There is no difference - - - and there will be no compromise.


No compromise....the essence of the gay movement.

Your way or the highway.

Shame really.




posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


Did you really just make that claim.. in a thread detailing the heterosexual agendas push to keep marriage for themselves with NO compromise.. not even allowing for civil unions?

Ironic, eh?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


Did you really just make that claim.. in a thread detailing the heterosexual agendas push to keep marriage for themselves with NO compromise.. not even allowing for civil unions?

Ironic, eh?


Nope, please read.

Shame you didn't go back a page.
edit on 10-5-2012 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
One of the traits of the human race that I despise most, is the inability to mind our own damn business and stay out of the affairs of other consenting adults. This is a prime example of such.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
And, if two people want to get "married" in a church, so be it. They can call it a "marriage". If two gays want to find someone will "marry" them, so be it. They can consider themselves "married".



There are many gay Christians who want both legal government marriage and a church wedding in the eyes of their God.

There are many Christian churches willing to marrying them.

There is no difference - - - and there will be no compromise.


No compromise....the essence of the gay movement.

Your way or the highway.

Shame really.


No - you've got that wrong.

No compromise - - - the essence of the humanity equality movement.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Nah, I like my idea better, especially since marriage has been used in the religious context for quite some time now.


Doesn't matter how long religion has hijacked an institution. Marriage didn't begin as a religious issue, it should remain non-religious.



I don't think the State or Federal government has a right to define marriage. But they can easily define a civil union for the purposes of equality.

It's a win-win by doing it that way.


I don't think religion has a right to define marriage, so it isn't a win win. Religion has no place defining anything that stretches beyond the reach of their ideology, especially something that predates said ideology's existence.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   




Waiting 45 years to get married. Says it all.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Nah, I like my idea better, especially since marriage has been used in the religious context for quite some time now.


Doesn't matter how long religion has hijacked an institution. Marriage didn't begin as a religious issue, it should remain non-religious.



I don't think the State or Federal government has a right to define marriage. But they can easily define a civil union for the purposes of equality.

It's a win-win by doing it that way.


I don't think religion has a right to define marriage, so it isn't a win win. Religion has no place defining anything that stretches beyond the reach of their ideology, especially something that predates said ideology's existence.



So, as long as we use your language and call everything "marriage" it will be hunky dory, right?

No, I disagree sir, it will not be alright. If "marriage" has been an institution (prior to those religious nuts getting hold of it) as you so claim, then WHY would government have to define it.

Shouldn't it stand on its own?

And WHY, for the sake of benefits and equality under the law, would it be a negative to call ALL unions civil unions.

I don't give a hairy rats behind what you want to call your union with anyone else. If you want to call what you did marriage, so be it. If a gay couple wants to find a church that will "marry" them, so what? Let them be married in the eyes of their god.

Let the government only recognize the legal aspect and call it a civil union. After all, that's really what gays and lesbians want.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Let the government only recognize the legal aspect and call it a civil union. After all, that's really what gays and lesbians want.


Now you speak for gays and lesbians?

And blacks were happy just to have a bus to ride - - even though they had to sit in the back.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

So, as long as we use your language and call everything "marriage" it will be hunky dory, right?

No, I disagree sir, it will not be alright. If "marriage" has been an institution (prior to those religious nuts getting hold of it) as you so claim, then WHY would government have to define it.

Shouldn't it stand on its own?


It should stand on its own. Unfortunately, people feel the need to inject religious ideology into politics, which goes against both the constitution and the personal beliefs of those who don't share that ideology.



And WHY, for the sake of benefits and equality under the law, would it be a negative to call ALL unions civil unions.


If the government wants to define all unions, both Gay and Straight as civil unions for the sake of keeping the language "legal" that's fine, as long as the term applies to both religous, non-religious, gay, and straight marriages.



I don't give a hairy rats behind what you want to call your union with anyone else. If you want to call what you did marriage, so be it. If a gay couple wants to find a church that will "marry" them, so what? Let them be married in the eyes of their god.


I agree. However, this is not the case in 42 of this Union's states.



Let the government only recognize the legal aspect and call it a civil union. After all, that's really what gays and lesbians want.


Wrong. They want equality. The same as straight couples. Equality is evident in terminology. You wouldn't call freed slaves "civil citizens" instead of human beings, would you? Again, marriage is not defined as a union between a man and a woman, it is defined as a contract between two families. If someone wants their marriage to be religiously defined, then there's already a term for that... Holy Matrimony.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Here are the top ten reasons why Same Sex Marriage should be illegal.

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


But marriage IS defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Your opinion does not trump what society considers marriage to be.

If they wanted equality, they would be happy with civil unions.

What you and most gays/lesbians are suggesting is that homosexuality has the right to subjugate the religious meaning of marriage simply because they feel that they should be treated equally. This is the minority, once again, forcing the majority to comply.

And when someone in the majority is offering a compromise, you balk. Therefore, i can only assume that real goal is not equality but the takeover of religion and the acknowledgement by all religions that homosexuality is ordained by god.
edit on 10-5-2012 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul

It should stand on its own. Unfortunately, people feel the need to inject religious ideology into politics, which goes against both the constitution and the personal beliefs of those who don't share that ideology.


America's government marriage license came about to legally prevent inter-racial marriage.

It had ZERO to do with religion.

There is nothing in the government contract called Marriage License - - - referencing god or religion.

What an insane issue to divide a country - - built on freedom from persecution.

BTW - - - did you know the Southern Baptist are direct descendents of the original Puritans?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


But marriage IS defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Your opinion does not trump what society considers marriage to be.



You're right, which is why America is dying as a nation. The dream is dead.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

If they wanted equality, they would be happy with civil unions.


Separate - but equal is NOT EQUAL.

This country already pulled that political crap once in its history.


edit on 10-5-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
The fact that this issue had to be voted on automatically implies bias and limitations on a group of people, thus rendering them less than equal in the eyes of the state. That right there makes it 'Unconstitutional'. This shouldn't have to be voted on at all. It's ridiculous, but everyone will keep screaming 'States Rights'.

If you have to vote on whether or not to treat certain groups of people as equals, that should be throwing red flags on the whole situation. The blind choose to stay blind I guess.

- Dredge



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul

The protection of an individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, which ensures one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.




Hmm, so does this mean any behavior is a right?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul

809 million people have died in religious wars.


Lol, ok someone prints this and it is true? PLEASE Give me a clue where this came from...lol


Below is about 450 mil.... Christian Crusades that lasted a few 100years was about 3 mil. Pol Pot did that many in like a year....

Can you list a few of the biggies that make up your 800 mil?

60 mil WWII
35 mil An Lushan Rebellion China
50 mil Mongol Conquests
30 mil Late Yuan warfare and transition to Ming Dynasty
25 mil Qing dynasty conquest of the Ming Dynasty
75 mil Taiping Rebellion China
15 mil Dungan revolt
65 mil WWI
18 mil Conquests of Timur
7 mil Panthay Rebellion



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Terrible sorry, but, when i read this topic it looks that i am reading a alien discussion, debated by aliens...about humans...

It's a weird feeling because for me, i never see heteros,Homos, or Bissexual ones...i just see people! Nothing more!



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by toochaos4u




Waiting 45 years to get married. Says it all.



I always enjoy my self to see a wonderfull proof of Equilibrium/Balance in this world!
Thanks God that the power of love is, and will be, ever, stronger than any kind of Law!


edit on 10/5/12 by Umbra Sideralis because: Some typos




top topics



 
21
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join