It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals.

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:28 PM

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by BIGPoJo

recognized by state sure but don't ask for church wedding.

Actually there are Christian based Churches that have no issue performing same sex marriage ceromonies in their Churches, even here in America....

I think that is what Freedom of Religion means

edit on 10-5-2012 by AliceBlackman because: added last line

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 01:22 PM
I am a straight woman, way back in the day I had a mixture of friends, we would hang at the little gay bar and sing karieoke. No one tried to grab or hit on us. we were treated nicely. there was a mix of gay men and women, and always a few men in drag.

here is another story, back in the day, aids was big then, we invited a group of gay people to have dinner at our house. They were ASTOUNDED, that a straight family would invite them to dinner.. HOW SAD IS THAT....

It was a nice dinner, everyone had a good time.

sex isn't just to make babies, there are many health benefits.

The bible, so many conflicting statements, and totally weird rules listed throughout, but they always pick out the one that fits. Like that other poster said, things were done a certain way back then because the population was small and needed to keep going.

will never be all gay or all straight, never going to happen.

being gay is not a choice, neither is being straight. I did not choose to be straight, I just knew at some point that I was attracted to the opposite sex.

women who are barren, couples who marry late in life after childbearing, they shouldn't be married either.

The irony, griping about the gay pride parades, we wouldn't be having them if it wasn't for the hateful homophobes who beat them ,kill, them, disown them ,call them an abomination. YOU are the reason for the gay pride parades,

they are 2 consenting adults hurting no one. I support their right to get married.

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:14 PM
As a straight, white man I support gay marriage. It only helps decrease the population, raise adoption rates, and allow more women for us! I like the aftermath. Gay marriage all the way! And if you were thinking about lesbians, don't think I forgot. That's the best type of porn, and trust me, straight guys enjoy it too! Haha

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Fromabove

You can get a piece of paper that says you're married. You can have a ceremony that mimics a marriage, and you can go through all the motions to imitate a marriage, but gays will never actually be married. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman that is blessed by God. Since God says that homosexuality is an abominable sin, and that it is one last stage of human depravity (Read Romans in the Bible), God cannot bless any such things as being called a marriage.

So, go about and do as you please and God will have the last say on the matter. As for me, gays cannot "be" married, no matter if any power from this present world system says so. It just cannot be.

So call it something else because it's not a marriage.

Obviously you have a right to personally believe what you think a marriage is.

Your views appear to be in line with the Council of Trent decree, authorized Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life."
In 1563 they also decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. Amazing this definition came so late in History really. The Prodestants position came later.

Jesus is not seen or quoted discussing sexual orientation, a subject one would believe he would preach during his discussions regarding sexual indiscretion, assuming that he considered the actions or state of gay individuals as being so terribly sinful.
St. Paul however did seem to have a "war" with his members, the "thorn in his flesh", who did say “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” .
Marriage appears to be seen by Paul as a last resort for weak individuals.
“But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I” (unmarried) (1 Corinthians 1:8)
“But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion”.

How does this make sense in the light of the prime directive from God in the garden of Eden to go forth, multiply and be fruitful ?

Other cultures do not get married "in front" of the Jewish God so does that mean they are not married either ?

There is actually a long history of same sex marriages in history and hetero marriage that pre-dates the Jewish tradition, so Christianity can not claim the "institution of marriage" exclusively.

Finally eating pork is also an abomination.....
edit on 10-5-2012 by AliceBlackman because: added last line

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

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:11 PM
reply to post by Fromabove

I wouldn't cite Romans as a Biblical reference against homosexuality. Romans is kind of vague in its wording, as it could apply to masturbation even. A better one is Leviticus, where it clearly states homosexuals should be put to death. Surely that more accurately reflects your Biblical position, correct? I mean, if you actually follow the word of your God, then surely, you must be for the murder of all gays....

Hence the problem with taking an ancient book too seriously....

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:50 PM
the bible, so full of inconsistencies: a child that is rebellous, stubborn,or curses their parents are to be put to death.

no work on sunday, not even to light fire, this is a permanent rule, so all the cops, hospital personnel working on sunday are sinning.

snakes eat dirt. every plant and seed god created is good to eat (hemlock, buckeye pod,nightshade, oleander are poisoneous)

there was day and night before the god created the sun. plants began to grow before there was sunlight.

cain builds and populates an entire city in 2 generations. entering the holy place without bells results in death.
you can't just cherry pick 1 thing in the bible and ignore the vast amout of nonsense there in.
edit on 10-5-2012 by research100 because: spelling

edit on 10-5-2012 by research100 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:02 PM
reply to post by research100

Sure you can, different sects of Christianity have been doing it for centuries.

That's the problem with trying to use the Book to defend a social position though. For every statement that condemns something, there's two more that could be used to defend it!

It's a collaborative collection of books by many different authors with different world and even religious views, further complicated by the Council of Nicea and the books they threw out of canon.

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by AliceBlackman

Jesus is not seen or quoted discussing sexual orientation

Apparently there is no mention of this in the approved bible for mass consumption. He did however say this:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

King James
Matthew 5:17

Perhaps Jesus did not find it necessary to delineate such laws but he did admonish the scribes and pharisees. We may not know everything he may have said.
We do know he believed in forgiveness and in not condemning.

It has been suggested that Jesus may have grown up in the Essene community and here is a statement from the Essenes on relationships.

The original Nazorean view on sexuality, in contrast to the orthodox stance, is quite liberal, yet there is a stress on certain principles and temperances.
Because of the male-female emphasis of the Order, it probably is not the best choice for a gay orientated male who seeks support and expression for their orientation. Even though the Order has a non judgmental and tolerant live and let live attitude toward all forms of responsible adult intimacy, the particular needs and/or demands of homosexual males may make membership unfulfilling to some degree. Due to the Order's orientation, it is somewhat more accommodating to lesbians, espeically if no animosity toward males exists, and is wholly supportive of bi-sexual females.

There is also a direct mention of androgyny

The foundational principle of our Order's view on Homosexuality hinges on whether we are truly androgynous, or simply pseudo-androgynous because we are separated from our opposites whilst in these fallen worlds. There are of course many schools that teach we are truly and eternally male and female as we are now - in this world, and that such reflects the true nature of the Gods and Goddesses above. Our Order teaches that we are indeed androgynous, but that our present androgynous nature is a product of the fall of the Primal Pair and not an eternal condition. We teach male female balance, but in a different manner than the androgynous pattern put forth by many. This belief has certain contradictions with a belief in the eternal validity of the male male sexual bond and of our present androgynous condition. We do not wish to be offensive toward anyone's sexual preferences and believe that intimacies between adults are their own private affair. We do, however, represent a certain Path that is focused upon the male female union, and must remain true to that Path by expounding the divine principles behind those unions that generate new Life.

The point of the nature of androgyny relates to the creation of man
Genesis 5:2
King James

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

There is speculation as to a possible androgynous nature in creation.
Hindu philosophy also contains references to the androgynous nature of creation

Still, the norm for creating new life in humans is a male/female union.

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

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

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:52 AM
reply to post by bjarneorn

Jerry Springer needs you!

No wonder you are a Grumpy Old Man!

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 03:47 AM
Hey OP, by the same token heterosexuals will have the same rights as homosexuals with gay marriage laws!

Just choose to become gay and you can also enjoy all the "special laws" for homosexuals!
Isn't that great news for concerned heterosexuals like yourself?

Finally not only homosexuals will enjoy all the great benefits of your "special" heterosexual laws, but you can then enjoy ours too!

Well alright then!

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:12 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

Haha, good point. But I am already married to the opposite sex and we do not believe in divorce so the chances of me "enjoying" gay rights are zero. I feel that if the government is in charge of marriage they should make it illegal to get a divorce, or just get out of the marriage business altogether. The religious version of marriage happens the moment you become one with your partner. If everyone would follow the old teachings of marriage there would be less domestic issues and less sexually transmitted diseases. I believe in marriage for life, not marriage of convenience. Speaking of which, the first gay couple to receive a legal marriage (the ones that fought so hard for it) actually filed for divorce, how ironic!

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 05:03 AM
reply to post by BIGPoJo

Oh well, you won't be choosing the option of equal heterosexual rights to enjoy gay rights then.
But that's your choice.
Western marriage does come with the option of divorce, so why should it be ironic if a gay marriage ends that way?

You obviously have a very good marriage and found your true love and partner.
But not all people find that in one partner, and some people discover they made mistakes, or even married an abuser or sociopath, or perhaps an infertile partner.

Just imagine what both men and women (but mainly women) went through in the days when divorce was virtually impossible.
The convention was to grin and bear it.
King Henry VIII founded his own church just to get a divorce, and beheaded more wives just to get a male heir and find some true love.

Forcing people to stay in marriages itself may not prevent STDS.
Unfortunately that doesn't guarantee that the partners will be faithful, and many a faithful wife has been exposed to HIV by a philandering husband (especially in our SA context where it's very much a heterosexual disease).

Old style marriage also came with prostitution that was tolerated even where illegal, as a kind of safety-valve for social cohesion.
It came with concubinage and affairs, especially amongst royalty that married for duty, and the concubinage and rape of colonized and slave women was common in the colonies.
Old style marriage also allowed the physical chastisement of wives, within reason.

In many cultures "old style marriage" means Old Testament-style polygamy, and inheriting your brother's wives if he died (still in many African cultures).

Our President Jacob Zuma just married his fourth wife, and although he's also a Christian, in African culture that makes him a man of good old-fashioned values.

Let's just look at Prince Charles and Camilla (the family who head the Anglican church since King Henry, and the KJV Bible).
He married Diana and had the "heir and the spare", yet Camilla was there from the start.
So he did his duty and that was old style marriage.
However, when Diana tragically died he got to marry his true love.

So what is "old-style" marriage, and how many Western women would be happy with that concept?

They were times with very different expectations of men and women, and while men could be forgiven indiscretions (on the basis that male sexuality is like an unstoppable force) female adulterers were treated harshly, and there were cases of white women being locked into asylums for having affairs with African men, when the "affairs" between white men and the natives was an open secret. So that marriage was a prison where as a woman you knew there was very little you could do if your husband strayed. But a lot of women actually accepted it, and divided sex from love.

I'm sure many men who stand for "old values" are good men, but unfortunately not all men are like that, and the men in power are often not like that at all.

Perhaps the positive aspects of it like faithfulness and unconditional support are fantastic to encourage, but it shouldn't be forced by legislation.
It is very sad however to think that a form of marriage can only be considered good and worthy by some if it exists as an opposition to another variation of marriage.
Surely its inherent qualities must be better than that.
Perhaps it should be flattered that others want to join this model, which isn't currently perfect, but still a good norm for Western societies.
edit on 11-5-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in