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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker808

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Homosexuality is found all through the animal kingdom.

no offense...but that is a horrible example
animals will always be animals....they have no concept of morality or modesty


Why is that a horrible example? It shows that homosexuality is natural. It happens.
I gave medical journal examples of how the brains of homosexual men are different
than the brains of 'straight' men. It's biological.

BTW .. one person's 'morality' issue isn't necessarily a 'morality' issue for others.
What you consider to be immoral, is perfectly natural to others.
Men married to men have sex together in private.
So how does that effect you? It doesn't. How is it anyone else's business? It's not.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker808

Originally posted by kaylaluv

The laws also used to say that you couldn't marry someone that was a different race than you. The Supreme Court ruled that this was unconstitutional, so the laws were changed.


there also used to be a law stating abortion was illegal...whats your point?
laws will always have critics and supporters...some more than others.
Unfortunately gay marriage doesnt have the popular opinion



My point is, that if a law is ruled unconstitutional by the highest court in the land, popular opinion doesn't matter. And by the way, popular opinion is starting to change regarding gay marriage - the majority of younger generations are in support of gay marriage. A couple of generations from now, gay marriage will be legal and a total non-issue for the majority of the public.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Hey look one of these threads again.

What's that flushing sound?

Oh it's the global economy still collapsing.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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.

Someone should tell the last part to the people protesting gay marriage. Even if that wasn't the case, there are Churches more than willing to marry gays, so it's a stupid argument either way.


Originally posted by Floydshayvious
Hey look one of these threads again.

What's that flushing sound?

Oh it's the global economy still collapsing.
Then go make a thread on it then instead of whining about it in unrelated trheads.
edit on 22-6-2012 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Why is that a horrible example? It shows that homosexuality is natural.

No it simply shows they behave as they are....as animals...
They engage in a wide range of sexual deviations.
Monogamy at large, is rare in the animal kingdom



BTW .. one person's 'morality' issue isn't necessarily a 'morality' issue for others.
What you consider to be immoral, is perfectly natural to others.
Men married to men have sex together in private.
So how does that effect you? It doesn't. How is it anyone else's business?


i think you misunderstood...animals in general, lack morality as we know it.
They behave instinctually....i wasnt refering to their homosexual nature specifically

...Also please dont infer what i consider immoral, or am against.
Just because i dont agree with what you're saying on certain aspects of a subject, doesnt make that so


Originally posted by kaylaluv
My point is, that if a law is ruled unconstitutional by the highest court in the land, popular opinion doesn't matter


aint that the truth!


edit on 22-6-2012 by truthseeker808 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by defcon5
 


Okay .. I tried to see what you are seeing. I really did. I just can't.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Let me see if I can better explain this too you.

To get a marriage license it says that it must be between a man and woman of consenting age, then may have additional criteria such as proving ID, getting a blood test, showing proof of not having syphilis, etc.

It doesn't say “homosexuals” cannot get married, it simply says that in order for marriage to exist its between members of opposite sexes. This also means that people cannot marry inanimate objects, pets, you name it.

In other words marriage is between A+B only.
Its not targeting A+A, or A+C/D/E for discrimination, its simply saying that only A+B is valid. Again, nowhere does it say that sexual orientation is a factor, even two heterosexual members of the same sex who wanted to get married couldn't.

Make sense?

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 @ 05:44 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Why is that a horrible example?
It shows that homosexuality is natural. It happens.

Because animals also have been found to commit rape, murder, filicide, cannibalism, necrophilia, etc... Are you suggesting that those should then be considered normal behavior because the animals do it?

Th oft touted “Bonobo chimps” will not only have sex with other members of the same sex, they will have sex with anything they can get their hands on, its an impulse control issue with them. I'd think that members of that group should be insulted by that comparison.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
I gave medical journal examples of how the brains of homosexual men are different
than the brains of 'straight' men. It's biological.

The problem with all those research studies on this is that they tend to be lead and funded by one interest group or the other, with an agenda to push in this argument.

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 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by defcon5
 


Okay .. I tried to see what you are seeing. I really did. I just can't.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Let me see if I can better explain this too you.

To get a marriage license it says that it must be between a man and woman of consenting age, then may have additional criteria such as proving ID, getting a blood test, showing proof of not having syphilis, etc.

It doesn't say “homosexuals” cannot get married, it simply says that in order for marriage to exist its between members of opposite sexes. This also means that people cannot marry inanimate objects, pets, you name it.

In other words marriage is between A+B only.
Its not targeting A+A, or A+C/D/E for discrimination, its simply saying that only A+B is valid. Again, nowhere does it say that sexual orientation is a factor, even two heterosexual members of the same sex who wanted to get married couldn't.

Make sense?

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



There is such a thing as intent. What is the intent of prohibiting same-sex marriage? It is the intent that is discriminatory. What is the intent of having marriage be between A+B only? All of the voting going on in the states regarding same-sex marriage is about homosexuality and you know it. Voting yes on the banning of same-sex marriage is discrimination against gays for being gay.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
There is such a thing as intent. What is the intent of prohibiting same-sex marriage? It is the intent that is discriminatory. What is the intent of having marriage be between A+B only? All of the voting going on in the states regarding same-sex marriage is about homosexuality and you know it. Voting yes on the banning of same-sex marriage is discrimination against gays for being gay.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

You're still getting it backwards. It not preventing, or discriminating against any group, its stating what it considers valid. If it said “Marriage exists between two people of consenting age, but they cannot be homosexuals”, or “homosexuals can never get married”, then you might have an argument for discrimination if that were a protected class.

There is nothing preventing someone who is homosexual from getting married, as long as its to a member of the opposite sex.

I realize that its a subtle difference, but do you understand?

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 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I don't understand why this is always such a huge deal. Marriage is an institution that originated in churches before Christ and it was always a covenant made between the two individuals and God. It used to be a sacred thing, but now it's all blown out of proportion.
Churches don't want it to be called marriage because they feel it mocks its original meaning.

If two gay people want to be together then great! More power to them. Don't we have civil unions that offer the same benefits as marriage already? If it isn't about the benefits and entitlement then what is the real point?

I think being with the person you love is what's important, why get so strung up about a word?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArnoldNonymous

If two gay people want to be together then great! More power to them. Don't we have civil unions that offer the same benefits as marriage already? If it isn't about the benefits and entitlement then what is the real point?

I think being with the person you love is what's important, why get so strung up about a word?



NO! Separate but equal didn't work last time America tried it.

How about gays get to keep the word Marriage - - - and the religious can call theirs a Civil Union or Holy Matrimony.

It is about Equality. This is about Legal Government Marriage - - - which is a legal government contract - - that does not mention god or religion any place in that contract.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by kaylaluv
There is such a thing as intent. What is the intent of prohibiting same-sex marriage? It is the intent that is discriminatory. What is the intent of having marriage be between A+B only? All of the voting going on in the states regarding same-sex marriage is about homosexuality and you know it. Voting yes on the banning of same-sex marriage is discrimination against gays for being gay.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

You're still getting it backwards. It not preventing, or discriminating against any group, its stating what it considers valid. If it said “Marriage exists between two people of consenting age, but they cannot be homosexuals”, or “homosexuals can never get married”, then you might have an argument for discrimination if that were a protected class.

There is nothing preventing someone who is homosexual from getting married, as long as its to a member of the opposite sex.

I realize that its a subtle difference, but do you understand?

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



But that's telling a homosexual, "you are free to marry, but it can't be someone you love - it has to be someone you aren't attracted to at all." We don't tell heterosexuals that, do we?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArnoldNonymous
If two gay people want to be together then great! More power to them. Don't we have civil unions that offer the same benefits as marriage already?
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I think that you've hit the nail on the head.
Religions consider marriage a sacrament, and there those in the homosexual lobby whose whole mission in life is to undermine religion. They are pushing this to gain a footing over being able to legally dictate church law. I guarantee that if they get their way with this, then they will move on to legally dictate the next religious practice that they disagree with.

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 @ 06:04 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)


By that ideal, Slavery should still be in effect. It was very unpopular to go against when the anti-slavery movement first started. The tyranny of the majority has been used to take away people's rights in the past and it's still being used now. So if someone said that you couldn't get married to someone else because you're both straight, would that be fair? No? Then neither is not allowing someone to marry because they're gay. We call that a CIVIL RIGHT. You don't have to like it, but you certainly don't have the right to prevent it.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
But that's telling a homosexual, "you are free to marry, but it can't be someone you love - it has to be someone you aren't attracted to at all." We don't tell heterosexuals that, do we?
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


It doesn't matter, the law could really care less if you marry someone you love or not, its not legally discriminatory.

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 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
But as far as I'm concerned - two consenting adults being able to marry whomever they wish IS a civil right.




I completely agree. Marriage in general is a civil issue, now more than ever. And I agree that marriage should be and is, something that two consenting adults, have every right to take part it. Gender should not be an issue.

Truth_2012



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by kaylaluv
But that's telling a homosexual, "you are free to marry, but it can't be someone you love - it has to be someone you aren't attracted to at all." We don't tell heterosexuals that, do we?
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


It doesn't matter, the law could really care less if you marry someone you love or not, its not legally discriminatory.

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)


Well, yes it is legally discriminatory, and there is precedent. Interracial marriage.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Well, yes it is legally discriminatory, and there is precedent. Interracial marriage.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


No, race is a discriminatory protected class:
“race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or handicap”.
If Sexual Orientation is not on that list, then its not a protected class, and not granted any additional rights or protections beyond the norm.


I could swear we already covered this ground on the previous page...


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 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by ArnoldNonymous
If two gay people want to be together then great! More power to them. Don't we have civil unions that offer the same benefits as marriage already?
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I think that you've hit the nail on the head.
Religions consider marriage a sacrament, and there those in the homosexual lobby whose whole mission in life is to undermine religion. They are pushing this to gain a footing over being able to legally dictate church law. I guarantee that if they get their way with this, then they will move on to legally dictate the next religious practice that they disagree with.

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


Now you are letting YOUR emotions rule your thinking. This is not about religion. There are many churches who are perfectly willing to marry gays in the eyes of God. The government is not supposed to be about religion. Marriage licenses are issued to atheists all the time. Continuing to have laws not allowing one homosexual to marry another homosexual is discrimination.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Well, yes it is legally discriminatory, and there is precedent. Interracial marriage.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


No, race is a discriminatory protected class:
“race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or handicap”.
If Sexual Orientation is not on that list, then its not a protected class, and not granted any additional rights or protections beyond the norm.


I could swear we already covered this ground on the previous page...


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)


Race wasn't always protected, but it is now. All we have to do is add sexual orientation to the list.




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join