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: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSandman
 



Originally posted by MrSandman
Marriage is a religious institution. Seperation of church and state right?


You do realize that marriage is a STATE institution. The STATE grants marriage licenses and the Justice of the Peace (an official of the STATE) can perform marriages... You realize this, right?



Gays can get married, they just have to call it a civil partnership or whatever they want.


Civil union is NOT the same as marriage and does not carry most of the important benefits that a legal marriage does. SO not, gays can NOT get married.



Gays can get "married" and the religious can have their sacred marriage preserved.


If gays get legally married, the religious can still have their sacred marriage preserved.

edit on 6/21/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Your right, it's a state institution aswell as a religious one. Should have stayed as a religious one if you ask me. I think the problem people have with gay marriage besides moral reasons is that it goes against the
Bible which says a marriage is between a man and a woman. If gays would settle with a civil partnership with all the benifits of a marriage I believe a lot of the resistance would simply disapear and a lot more people could accept it. For gays, marriage is just a word, for the religious it's something a lot more.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSandman
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Your right, it's a state institution as well as a religious one.


But - do you know why marriage is controlled by state?

Pure discrimination. States were given marriage rights to prevent undesirables from being part of their community.

A Federal Marriage Act will supersede any state rights.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSandman
If gays would SETTLE with a civil partnership with all the benifits of a marriage


Settle?

Here's an idea. Religious can SETTLE - - for everyone having the exact same marriage rights. Even calling it the same thing it is - - Marriage.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSandman
 


Separate but equal didn't work with race and it won't work with this either. It's all or nothing and if gays can't get married, then marriage needs to not exist in the eyes of the state.
People don't choose to be gay, they're born that way. People do choose to be religious, they are not born that way.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

howdy FlyersFan, perhaps it is time to change the question ?

- should two consenting adults be able to marry each other and have all the legal rights that other married consenting adults have?
2 parts to this ...
part 1 - "Should two consenting adults be able to marry each other" - yes.
part 2 - "should we eliminate the special legal classification known as "married" and all the associated legal attachments, tax benefits, blah, blah, blah ??

if the gay population still insists on marrying, they can argue it with the Church of their choosing.
don't know about y'all, but i think taxdollars spent on this nonsense is just plain silly.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I'm still unsure as to why gays are unable marry here in the states. The most common excuse is the religious argument, but that argument is a farce.



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 ordemographic of the time. [13] Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage.


Referencing Wiki - Marriage (I am still unable to use the link function on mobile) we see marriage existed long before the religious institutions that claim it as their own. When you attempt to define marriage, answers vary from the time period, the culture and the associated religion, if applicable. The denial of gay rights come from deep seeded Christian values that form our legislation. If marriage were truly a state institution, it would be a violation of civil rights to grant one party certain benefits, while denying the other. It's illogical, unless you factor in religion.

Majority rule is another farce. Whether the majority supports it or not, you are suggesting the largest body can pick and choose who is given certain benefits on the sole reasoning of sexual orientation. This is where it becomes a civil rights issue. Outside of religious text, who is to say whether there is a correct sexual orientation? If you rely on the man+woman pro-creation argument, then surely you take the Santorum stance that sex is for pro-creating and nothing else. If that's the case, logic dictates sex for pleasure should be banned all together.

In my opinion, everyone should have the right to marry. Every preacher has the right to refuse to marry a gay couple. Everyone gets equal rights, everyone can express their beliefs, and no one gets left out.

Or we can continue debating what should be non-issues while our brethren are slaughtering each other all over the world, children are starving and greed continues to poison men's souls?




edit on 22-6-2012 by OpsSpecialist because: D@mn you autocorrect.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
gay and lesbian should rejoice they cant get married, being married is horrible



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
'Homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections like race and gender' - they say.
They are entitled to their opinion but ... who are they to decide what qualifes?
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


What gives him the right to say this?
He has the right to say it because he's absolutely correct under US discrimination law. Discriminination in the US only covers “race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or handicap”, it does NOT cover sexual orientation. Other countries legal definition of discrimination vary, and some do cover Sexual Orientation, but there are no legal protections given for it in the US.

Your personal feelings on the topic really have no merit on the subject, it all comes down to what the laws actually state.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by FlyersFan
'Homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections like race and gender' - they say.
They are entitled to their opinion but ... who are they to decide what qualifes?
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


What gives him the right to say this?
He has the right to say it because he's absolutely correct under US discrimination law. Discriminination in the US only covers “race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or handicap”, it does NOT cover sexual orientation. Other countries legal definition of discrimination vary, and some do cover Sexual Orientation, but there are no legal protections given for it in the US.

Your personal feelings on the topic really have no merit on the subject, it all comes down to what the laws actually state.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


Actually, he is not entirely correct. In an expansion of current law signed in to effect by Obama in 2009, homosexuals were included under the hate crime bill. Obviously it is a class meriting special protection and federal law clearly states that.

He may have been a little too broad with his statement.


articles.cnn.com...
OLITICS
edit on 22-6-2012 by OpsSpecialist because: Added supporting link.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


There is a lot of confusion on this topic, mainly because your average person really has no ability to think. The idea is to make ALL RELIGIONS illegal because ALL RELIGIONS condemn homosexuals. The religions of the world are all about procreative behavior.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Southern Baptists see Homosexuality as a moral decision... just like drinking alcohol or stealing or lying.As such, it is not like skin color or gender because we have no choice being a man or woman or white, black, or asian, etc.

Gays argue that they were born that way and as such, they have no choice.

That is the biggest difference.

I myself see it as a lifestyle choice... almost like choosing to be Amish or veggan...as such, Gays have the same rights under the US Constitution we all enjoy... even if I am a Southern Baptist..LOL



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpsSpecialist
Actually, he is not entirely correct. In an expansion of current law signed in to effect by Obama in 2009, homosexuals were included under the hate crime bill. Obviously it is a class meriting special protection and federal law clearly states that
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Legally you're talking “apples and oranges”. One is a civil matter of protected classes, and the other is a sentencing enhancement used for criminal charges. Sexual orientation is still not a protected “class” under civil law in the US. For example an employer can still fire you because they disagree with your sexual orientation, but not if they dislike your religion. This is still considered perfectly legal under US law in “right to work” states. Now if you committed a crime against someone based on their sexual orientation, then the charge may be enhanced to a hate crime, because that IS now legally covered under law.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 6/22/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


really though .. does it matter which came first? Religion or marriage?
(I still think it was religion .. but whatever)
Who cares what the social play was 200,000 years ago when it comes to this?
This is now .. and in the here and now what is important? Right?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
He has the right to say it because he's absolutely correct under US discrimination law. Discriminination in the US only covers “race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or handicap”, it does NOT cover sexual orientation.

That's good information. Thanks for posting it. Guess it's time to change the law.

Your personal feelings on the topic really have no merit on the subject, it all comes down to what the laws actually state.

My personal feelings have plenty of merit, thank you very much.

You are right though .. it comes down to the laws ... and the laws need to be changed.
It's obvious that homosexual people who wish to marry are not being allowed to based
upon their sexuality. So there does indeed seem to be a civil rights issue based on
sexual orientation going on. This needs to be addressed.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrSandman
Your right, it's a state institution aswell as a religious one.


It's a state institution. Many people ADD a religious aspect, but it's not at all necessary. The state and religion do not regulate marriage. The STATE only regulates marriage and marriage laws.



I think the problem people have with gay marriage besides moral reasons is that it goes against the
Bible which says a marriage is between a man and a woman.


1. Going against the bible and having a moral reason is the same thing.
2. Where in the bible does it say that marriage is between a man and a woman?



If gays would settle with a civil partnership with all the benifits of a marriage I believe a lot of the resistance would simply disapear and a lot more people could accept it.


There is no such thing as a civil partnership with all the benefits of marriage! What do you think they're fighting for? Legal marriage has over a THOUSAND federal benefits that civil unions don't have. Would you "settle" for that?



For gays, marriage is just a word,


BS. Who are you to say what marriage means to ANYONE?

reply to post by Honor93
 



Originally posted by Honor93
don't know about y'all, but i think taxdollars spent on this nonsense is just plain silly.


I'm sure a lot of while people said that during the civil rights era... But the black people didn't think it was "nonsense".

reply to post by DocHolidaze
 



Originally posted by DocHolidaze
gay and lesbian should rejoice they cant get married, being married is horrible


I'm celebrating 20 years of marital bliss this week. Marriage is what YOU make it. If your marriage was horrible, don't blame the institution. Blame yourself.
edit on 6/22/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by OpsSpecialist
Actually, he is not entirely correct. In an expansion of current law signed in to effect by Obama in 2009, homosexuals were included under the hate crime bill. Obviously it is a class meriting special protection and federal law clearly states that
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Legally you're talking “apples and oranges”. One is a civil matter of protected classes, and the other is a sentencing enhancement used for criminal charges. Sexual orientation is still not a protected “class” under civil law in the US. For example an employer can still fire you because they disagree with your sexual orientation, but not if they dislike your religion. This is still considered perfectly legal under US law in “right to work” states. Now if you committed a crime against someone based on their sexual orientation, then the charge may be enhanced to a hate crime, because that IS now legally covered under law.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 6/22/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)


I have to humbly disagree that someone could be fired for sexual orientation in an "at will" or "right to work" state.

Except from Civil Rights Act of 1964:




Title VII Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[34]). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.[35]


Reading that, it appears as if you cannot be discriminated against based on your relations with an individual based on their sex. This could be construed to mean homosexual couple. Considering the time this bill was wrote, I don't really know if this was the intention, but it does read that way.

If that were the case, you could argue that homosexuals do fall in to the civil rights category, albeit not completely covered under the law. ...and that may be enough back a civil rights case.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



Originally posted by defcon5
He has the right to say it because he's absolutely correct under US discrimination law. Discriminination in the US only covers “race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or handicap”, it does NOT cover sexual orientation.


The 14th Amendment:



1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


States cannot make laws that deny ANY person (gays included) equal protection under the law.

Just because a group isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not protected, as the 9th Amendment states:



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Other rights like marriage and the federal benefits it provides.

Equal treatment under the law!

DIscrimination Law








edit on 6/22/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by OpsSpecialist
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Then you'd be incorrect:

CNN: Being gay is not a choice
When Shorter University in northwest Georgia recently informed its 200 employees that they had to sign a "personal lifestyle pledge" requiring them to reject homosexuality or lose their jobs, school administrators underscored a staggering injustice: In 29 U.S. states, people can still be fired for being gay.

Without that federal law, a majority of our states condone job, housing and other discrimination based on sexual orientation. An even larger number -- 35 -- have no protections for transgender people.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The 14th Amendment:



1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


States cannot make laws that deny ANY person (gays included) equal protection under the law.

Just because a group isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not protected, as the 9th Amendment states:
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


They have equal treatment under law; however, they are not granted any special protections under law as a protected class from discrimination. You're not understanding how law works.

In a “right to work” state, and in many companies, they can fire you “at will” for lifestyle choices (ie. Drinking, doing drugs, not dressing appropriately, not having proper grooming, etc...). This falls under a lifestyle choice, not something that is protected as a class under anti-discrimination laws. A class is generally something that is beyond your ability to control, such as your sex, race, age, or health condition. Religion is extended these protections because of its part in the founding of the country for religious protection.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 6/22/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join