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.

 

Southern Baptists - 'Same Sex Marriage is Not a Civil Rights Issue'

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Sexual orientation is NOT presently a protected class, and not granted any special privileges or protections under US law.

Again .. homosexuals aren't asking to be a 'protected class' and they aren't asking for any 'special privileges'. They are asking to be treated the same as heterosexual people. No more. No less. Consenting non-related adults want to have the civil right to be married. That's it.




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpsSpecialist
Schizophrenic's can pose a danger to others or their self. How can you compare it to homosexuality?

Civil rights were granted to minorities due to a genetic trait that harms no one, skin color. Civil rights were granted to women due to a genetic trait which harms no one, gender. The rights granted to women and minorities encompasses interracial marriage as well.

If homosexuality is proven to be a genetic trait, that harms no one, how can you say it doesn't fall in to civil rights?


I'm just using YOUR reasoning.

So any individual genetic trait that does no harm to others, is deserving of civil rights protection?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by rival
I don't understand why any person would care who another person chooses to marry.


You summed it up nicely.
Two consenting non-related adults wish to marry.
So .. what business do others have in stopping them from doing so?
None.


Originally posted by truthseeker808
If a homosexual person likes the idea of marriage, then why not just wear wedding bands, and call eachother husband/wife.

If a straight couple likes the idea of marriage, then why not just wear wedding bands and call each other husband and wife? (sarcasm)


Originally posted by defcon5
Can a man get married? …..Yes
Can a woman get married? ….Yes

Ahhh ... but not always to whom they want to.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
The point I'm trying to make, is that in some genetic traits, we work to correct the genetic expression, in order for the individual to fit in to society.

Like autism.

Yet in homosexuality, we adjust society in order to accomidate the genetic expression.


Interesting.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by OpsSpecialist
Schizophrenic's can pose a danger to others or their self. How can you compare it to homosexuality?

Civil rights were granted to minorities due to a genetic trait that harms no one, skin color. Civil rights were granted to women due to a genetic trait which harms no one, gender. The rights granted to women and minorities encompasses interracial marriage as well.

If homosexuality is proven to be a genetic trait, that harms no one, how can you say it doesn't fall in to civil rights?


I'm just using YOUR reasoning.

So any individual genetic trait that does no harm to others, is deserving of civil rights protection?


One is considered a disease. The other a possible part of biological makeup that one has no more control over than something such as gender or skin color.

If scientifically proven, and use a big IF there, it would clearly be a civil rights issue. Discrimination because of something inherent at the deepest level of what makes a person. You can treat a mental condition. Changing DNA is something else all together.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
So any individual genetic trait that does no harm to others, is deserving of civil rights protection?

Marriage isn't a protection.
It's just two consenting adults who love each other wanting to be with each other.



QUESTION TO WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER -

If two men love each other and want to get married .... why do you want to stop them?
They want the same civil right of marriage to the person they love that others have.
You have that right. Why do you want to deny others that right?
What they do won't effect you at all. So why do you fight it?
1-2% of the population is gay. Why are you so intent on denying this
civil right to 1-2% of Americans? It doesn't effect you at all ... so why fight it?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpsSpecialist

One is considered a disease. The other a possible part of biological makeup that one has no more control over than something such as gender or skin color.



At one time time homosexuality was thought of, as a disease.


If scientifically proven, and use a big IF there, it would clearly be a civil rights issue. Discrimination because of something inherent at the deepest level of what makes a person. You can treat a mental condition. Changing DNA is something else all together.


The mental condition is an expression of DNA, they are one and the same.

You can't differentiate the two.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by beezzer
So any individual genetic trait that does no harm to others, is deserving of civil rights protection?

Marriage isn't a protection.
It's just two consenting adults who love each other wanting to be with each other.



QUESTION TO WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER -

If two men love each other and want to get married .... why do you want to stop them?
They want the same civil right of marriage to the person they love that others have.
You have that right. Why do you want to deny others that right?
What they do won't effect you at all. So why do you fight it?
1-2% of the population is gay. Why are you so intent on denying this
civil right to 1-2% of Americans? It doesn't effect you at all ... so why fight it?


I'm not against it, I'm just illustrating how fragile the argument IS for it.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
At one time time homosexuality was thought of, as a disease.

Beezzer ... the DSM-IV removed homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders.
The evidence of difference in the physiological makeup of the gay vs straight brain is well documented.
Being gay is just who a person is .. physically. It manifests outwardly in same sex attraction.
That's no different than a 'straight' person.
It's who they are physically and it manifests outwardly in opposite sex attraction.
It's not a disease.

Technically it is disfunctional because the sex organs are for procreation and
same sex attraction takes that out of the equation. But a 'disfunction' isn't an
excuse to preclude someone from the civil right of marriage. If it were, then
everyone who couldn't procreate would have been excluded from being able to
be married. (that would include me because I had endometriosis and couldn't
have children). That would be absurd. Don't you think?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I'm not against it, I'm just illustrating how fragile the argument IS for it.

Okay. I see where you are coming from.
I just see it from a different angle.
I dont' have any problem with gay marriage. It doesn't effect me. It doesn't hurt me.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
That would be absurd. Don't you think?


Most assuridly.

I'm just pointing out something.

Homosexuality is an expression of DNA.

Autism is an expression of DNA.

In one, we adjust society to accept the expression.

In the other, we adjust the expression to conform to society.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by beezzer
At one time time homosexuality was thought of, as a disease.

Beezzer ... the DSM-IV removed homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders.
The evidence of difference in the physiological makeup of the gay vs straight brain is well documented.
Being gay is just who a person is .. physically. It manifests outwardly in same sex attraction.
That's no different than a 'straight' person.
It's who they are physically and it manifests outwardly in opposite sex attraction.
It's not a disease.

Technically it is disfunctional because the sex organs are for procreation and
same sex attraction takes that out of the equation. But a 'disfunction' isn't an
excuse to preclude someone from the civil right of marriage. If it were, then
everyone who couldn't procreate would have been excluded from being able to
be married. (that would include me because I had endometriosis and couldn't
have children). That would be absurd. Don't you think?


Read a link in one of my previous post in this thread. Most up to date research suggest it is not a dysfunction, but a product of evolution. A gene passed down, that when present in females, appears to enhance fertility and lessen risk of reproductive disorders and conditions.

When present in males, can be outwardly expressed as homosexuality. It is part of the Balance theory, that evidence is supporting more and more.

In response to the previous post, autism has been linked to environmental factors, namely drugs, contaminants and other negative variables. Homosexuality may very well be linked to a natural evolution.
edit on 23-6-2012 by OpsSpecialist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I'm not against it, I'm just illustrating how fragile the argument IS for it.


Beezzer, as I've said before, you are extremely unlikely to find either rhetorical or intellectual integrity among gay advocates; simply because being right isn't on their list of priorities. Being accepted is.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. As I've said before, I really don't have a problem with homosexuality in and of itself, at all.

What I have a major problem with, however, is the rhetorical behaviour and mentality of the majority of gay advocates that I've seen. It isn't about them being gay, in and of itself, at all. It's about their perception of the ends justifying the means, and that it is completely acceptable for them to say literally anything they have to, in order to achieve their objectives.

They'll claim homosexuality has a genetic basis, as one example. Whether it genuinely does or not, is irrelevant. The point is whether or not that claim assists them in obtaining what they want from their opponents. Whatever they say is considered true, is accepted and becomes part of canon political correctness without any debate whatsoever, and if anyone refutes that, they're immediately considered a bigot and accused of engaging in hate speech.

I've seen how NARTH have been treated; and I don't for one moment view them as a hate group, at all. They're simply interested in genuinely good science. Unfortunately, at times that apparently means saying things that the gay community don't want to hear.
edit on 23-6-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
You know what .. nevermind.
I edited it out.
I'm not going to sink to that persons level.

edit on 6/23/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
It is unconstitutional to say that you can't marry someone who is the same gender as you. It hurts no one, it involves consenting, tax-paying adults, there are no birth defects with childbirth (as with close relatives) -- there is NO reason to not allow these kinds of marriages to take place. This issue just needs to get to the Supreme Court - and it will, eventually.


*word*.


It will eventually go to the Supreme Court and I look forward to that day.

Some people here confuse laws with civil rights. As if we make laws to grant or deny civil rights to others... We all know how the law works, but sometimes the laws made by man are faulty. You can make laws that deny someone's civil rights, but you cannot take them away. The right is still there, they're just being denied access to it.

It never ceases to amaze me that on a board like ATS, whose base membership purports to be for freedom and the people's rights, there are some who would adamnatly deny a group the right to happiness and their civil rights.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
You know what .. nevermind.
I edited it out.
I'm not going to sink to that persons level.

edit on 6/23/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)


Did I really say anything that was so hateful, FlyersFan? Or is it simply that I'm not expressing pre-approved "correct," opinions?

I've been self-censoring where this topic is concerned, and I've noticed myself doing it. I'm not going to do that any more.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 



Originally posted by petrus4
I've been self-censoring where this topic is concerned, and I've noticed myself doing it. I'm not going to do that any more.


Oh, goodie! I can't wait to hear how you really feel! Especially since your position is so expertly laid out and meaningful.


Pssst! Gay advocates aren't necessarily gay.
And I'm not so much a gay advocate as an equal rights advocate. But it's OK that you're not. I know it's hard for some people "allow" others to be equal to them.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
Did I really say anything that was so hateful, FlyersFan

Hateful? I don't know your motivation. But hypocritical? Definately.

case in point -

Originally posted by petrus4
you are extremely unlikely to find either rhetorical or intellectual integrity among gay advocates ... It's about their perception of the ends justifying the means, and that it is completely acceptable for them to say literally anything they have to, in order to achieve their objectives.

That's a huge load of poop. (take out the 'gay advocates' and interject 'religious extremists' and you might have it correct). Stating proven FACTS about biology doesn't mean that someone is 'saying literally anything' ... it means that the person is stating FACTS. Pure and simple .. FACTS.

And then there is this lil' gem ....

They'll claim homosexuality has a genetic basis, as one example. Whether it genuinely does or not, is irrelevant

So stating the proven scientific and biological truth is 'irrelevant' .. because it goes against YOUR rhetoric. And yet you talk about others not having 'intellectual integrity. OY VEY.


Again .. I asked this question before and is open to anyone ...
Two consenting adults who aren't related wish to get married.
What business is it of yours to not allow them to?
Them getting married doesn't hurt you at all.
So why stick your nose into their business?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
What business is it of yours to not allow them to?
Them getting married doesn't hurt you at all.
So why stick your nose into their business?


That isn't my business. It also, however, isn't my issue; and I don't care about it.

Do me a favour though, Flyers. If you're willing and you have the time, go and read this.

I'd be curious to find out what response it evokes in you. Personally, I'm just honestly hoping it isn't true.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Just for the sake of being onery


Can someone please explain to me why in the case of autism, we treat the individual to conform to scociety, but in the case of homosexuality, we expect society to conform to the individual.

Both are simple expressions of diferentiated (against the mean) genetics.





top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join