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: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time


en.wikipedia.org...

so, neither of us know for sure since it predates recorded history but religion also pre dates much recorded history whiel we ignorant humans thougt we were the center of evrything. I believe that government came out of organized religious culture.. Clearly tribal cultures were the first cultures we had and while they may have had an authortian leader there was usually a religious cultural base to their lives...

It is my belief that is why the Middle East is the way it is ... tribalism....
edit on 21-6-2012 by fnpmitchreturns because: link




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
But the question still is - should two consenting adults be able to marry each other and have all the legal rights that other married consenting adults have?


Legally, marriage is a contract between two people, where the government gives said two people various incentives, to allow said government to be a third party.

This, however, is the legal basis for the existence of child protective services, among other things. Whenever two people make a contract, there's generally a principle; i.e., some form of material property changes hands. In the case of non-government marriages, that used to be a dowry. In the case of government, it's your children.

Ordinarily speaking, people who want marriage with the government involved, generally do so because they want the incentives government gives people, to allow it to be a third party to the contract. If government didn't offer heterosexuals incentives for that, (such as apparently social welfare perks and various other things) then most gays probably wouldn't care about marriage. They wouldn't need to; a civil service or a handfasting would be enough.

The problem is that gays don't have a material principle to offer the government in exchange for its' incentives, because gays can't biologically have children. If a clause of the gay marital contract was a contract to also, definitely adopt children which the government then owned, then the government would probably agree to doing it, and the Christians would suddenly and mysteriously become pacified about the idea.

Then again, that also wouldn't work, because any child available for adoption, is already a ward of the State. The important thing to understand, is that the Emancipation Proclamation in some ways wasn't as important as you might think; and in a lot of ways, slaves even got a somewhat better deal at times, than contemporary workers do now.

That might seem like an irrelevant issue to what we're talking about, but it's not; because the point is that a gay couple don't have anything to trade the government as part of a marital contract, that the government is going to want.
edit on 21-6-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Marriage predates religion and even recorded history.

Religion predates marriage. Cave men had religion without marriage.
The cave paintings and artifacts point to neanderthals (and prior) having
a belief in the afterlife and spirit world. Some would have partners or 'mates'
whereas others just had sexual relations at will. At least, that's what we
learned in evolutionary psychology class. 'Marriage' - the union recognized
by a religious and/or government authority - came later.

But whatever ...
People can have religion without marriage.
People can have marriage without religion.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 



Originally posted by petrus4
Legally, marriage is a contract between two people, where the government gives said two people various
incentives, to allow said government to be a third party.
...
In the case of government, it's your children.


I guess older people and infertile people should be excluded as well, then... I don't remember having children being in my marriage contract... If it is, I'm in trouble!

This is just an excuse people use to continue to discriminate against gay people. Gay people have kids ALL THE TIME. Our lesbian couple friends have a 20 year-old kid... not adopted. Gay people's reproductive systems still work just fine.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
The majority of states and people do not want this to happen.

The problem with this country is that the minority desire changes that the majority do not want.

Popular opinion is what this country is supposed to make their decisions on.

If the majority decide they want it, then allow it to happen. But while the majority are against it, it should not be allowed to happen.


edit on 21-6-2012 by MentorsRiddle because: (no reason given)


Actually, according to national polling, the majority of people are in favor of it. It gets stuck in some state elections because of concentration of certain groups in the states that have voted to ban it.

www.gallup.com...

Aa far as popular opinion on minority rights, what is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular. If we had gone on that idea, blacks would still be slaves, women still wouldn't be able to vote and we may well still be a British colony.

I want all people to have the same rights and priveledges I have as well as the same responsibilities. That's what being free is about.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
Besides - at that time the majority of the Nation wanted slavery to end, which is why there was a war over it: because a minority, the south, didn't want it to end.



According to the gallup poll, the majority of the Nation supports gay marriage. Again, a minority, the south, doesn't want it, therefore, by your reasoning, it should be allowed.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Since there are many gay churches out there as well as mainstream churches that openly perform civil unions, it is clear that gay marriage isn't against Christianity at all, it is only unfavorable in certain denominations.

People don't have to be religious in order to get married so marriage is not a religious issue.

People don't have to be married to have sex, so it is not a sex issue.

It is a government contract between two people in order to gain the rights and responsibilities laid forth by the term marriage. In order to have equality, they either need to allow gay marriage or do away with heterosexual marriage as well.

We know that will never happen because it will put a lot of divorce lawyers out of business. So, in order to serve the biggest proponent of heterosexual marriage, the divorce lawyers, it would make sense to allow gay marriage as well as most likely, the same percentage would end in divorce as the heterosexual marriages.

I am very secure in my sexuality and what two other people do in their bedroom has no effect on me in any way whatsoever. I do question those who feel it does.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartbreakerb

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
The majority of states and people do not want this to happen.

The problem with this country is that the minority desire changes that the majority do not want.

Popular opinion is what this country is supposed to make their decisions on.

If the majority decide they want it, then allow it to happen. But while the majority are against it, it should not be allowed to happen.


edit on 21-6-2012 by MentorsRiddle because: (no reason given)


Actually, according to national polling, the majority of people are in favor of it. It gets stuck in some state elections because of concentration of certain groups in the states that have voted to ban it.

www.gallup.com...

Aa far as popular opinion on minority rights, what is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular. If we had gone on that idea, blacks would still be slaves, women still wouldn't be able to vote and we may well still be a British colony.

I want all people to have the same rights and priveledges I have as well as the same responsibilities. That's what being free is about.


Is that why gay marriage is shot down in almost every state where there has been a public vote?

Common' man...



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


Yes, in every state where they have tried to ban it, there is a strong contingency of the groups who are against it. That's why it comes up for a vote, they demand that their politicians address it. At the same time, the majority of the population isn't against it. The states where the higher populations reside pretty much stay out of it and are waiting for the federal government to make the decision instead of trying to force others to do what they want.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

That might seem like an irrelevant issue to what we're talking about, but it's not; because the point is that a gay couple don't have anything to trade the government as part of a marital contract, that the government is going to want.


While I don't agree with your theory, I'll play along: marriage is good because it reduces promiscuity. The government should want to promote monogamous partnerships to avoid the diseases that can be spread with promiscuous, random sex. It is good for the society as a whole to reduce sexually transmitted diseases, no? Of course there is no guarantee that any marriage will remain monogamous, but the traditional marriage that some gays desire would certainly reduce promiscuity, which is a good thing.

The government already gives benefits for having children that are separate from marriage, and you don't have to be married to get those benefits. Also, as Benevolent Heretic pointed out, there is nothing in the marriage contract that requires children. This implies that marriage and children are completely separate in the government's eyes.
edit on 21-6-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartbreakerb
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


Yes, in every state where they have tried to ban it, there is a strong contingency of the groups who are against it. That's why it comes up for a vote, they demand that their politicians address it. At the same time, the majority of the population isn't against it. The states where the higher populations reside pretty much stay out of it and are waiting for the federal government to make the decision instead of trying to force others to do what they want.


This is a total cop out excuse.

It is absurd. If there was a large group that was for it, then you'd see the same amount of people addressing their poloticians as well....

Stop trying to make a valid argument to support gay marriage as a popular thing when it is, as of now, not.... It's very cut and dry - I don't know why people try to lie and manipulate numbers and give opinion as actual fact, when the truth is so much more simple.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


Nothing has been manipulated and the gallup poll was given to you. If you choose to not accept facts, that is up to you.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartbreakerb
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


Nothing has been manipulated and the gallup poll was given to you. If you choose to not accept facts, that is up to you.


What's sad to me is you got a star for that reply....

I am giving facts - you are the one denying the facts.

I don't know why I even debate in these stupid "gay" posts anymore - they are the same rethoric spouted by people who are ill informed, and trying to manipulate information to fit their agenda.

It is not a popular concept - this has been shown many times - gay marriage has been rejected in a majority of states, and is only popular in states that are majority liberal...

I wish we could have an experiement were one state went totally liberal, and another state went totally conserv. I would put money down that says the liberal state would be totally corrupt, bankrupt, and falling apart within months, to a year.... Oh way - they have that in California already.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
If sexuality should not be protected, neither should their religion.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by cetaphobic
If sexuality should not be protected, neither should their religion.


Can you clarify what you mean?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Religion predates marriage. Cave men had religion without marriage.
The cave paintings and artifacts point to neanderthals (and prior) having
a belief in the afterlife and spirit world. Some would have partners or 'mates'
whereas others just had sexual relations at will. At least, that's what we
learned in evolutionary psychology class. 'Marriage' - the union recognized
by a religious and/or government authority - came later.



Hmmmm - - - but is not choice to be monogamous a marriage in some sense - - prior to any official social declaration?

Is not commitment to another a form of marriage - - prior to any official social declaration?

I would think this predates consciousness by choice of any creator.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
While I don't agree with your theory, I'll play along: marriage is good because it reduces promiscuity. The government should want to promote monogamous partnerships to avoid the diseases that can be spread with promiscuous, random sex. It is good for the society as a whole to reduce sexually transmitted diseases, no?


This is the main reason why I advocate gay marriage. Homosexual monogamy saves lives. It's very simple.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle

It is absurd. If there was a large group that was for it, then you'd see the same amount of people addressing their poloticians as well....


The voting against gay marriage only shows the organized efforts of those adamant against it - - mostly for religious reasons.

Many people don't care one way or the other - - - and have no personal investment in voting for or against. So they don't vote.

Many young gays - - just like young heteros - - don't care about politics. They just want to party and have a good time. They are not thinking about marriage.

Activists have been successful in getting more people to care about Equal Rights - - - and the latest Gallup Poll proves that because for the first time 51% of those polled support gay marriage.

BTW - - - the same amount of states voting against gay marriage - - - is the exact same number who were against civil rights. Same group of people - basically.




edit on 21-6-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle

Is that why gay marriage is shot down in almost every state where there has been a public vote?

Common' man...



The issue isn't that people are voting against civil rights. The issue is that they're voting on them at all.



All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.


- Thomas Jefferson



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Marriage is a religious institution. Seperation of church and state right? Gays can get married, they just have to call it a civil partnership or whatever they want. That should solve both problems. Gays can get "married" and the religious can have their sacred marriage preserved.



new topics




 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join