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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by ArnoldNonymous
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?



Actually marriage pre-dates christianity and even religion. It was a legal rite that conferred rights and usually property of some kind. And gay marriage has been around LONG before Christianity existed.

Christianity hijacked it for their own purposes, much like many "religious" rites that are actually pagan or secular in origin. Those folks who are against gay marriage will be known as those old bigots across the street or wherever in 20 or 30 years. Their behavior will be looked at with embarrassment and wonder at how such a society allowed things like that to happen... How do I know this? Because the same thing has happened throughout history with civil rights issues.

Lets just call ALL marriages Civil Unions... That'll fix it... Right? What? You don't like that? Why not? Is that discrimination? Of course it is...




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 



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



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by kaylaluv
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.

This whole argument started because its a religious sacrament. There are even more churches, powerful ones, who are against this. I believe that if they simply called it a “civil union” the whole issue would go away, but you have groups who want to push for the legal term “marriage” because this has become a grudge between the two.


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

What do you think folks have been arguing about for decades now?


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 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArnoldNonymous
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?



Thank You, This is what I've been trying to say. There has to be compromise on both sides.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Anytime the Southern Baptists come up, it's nothing good. Took more few whippings and beatings for it as a young teen (13), but I never went back to that zombie factory of an organization. When you learn in Sunday School that all other Christian denominations are going to hell, you have to LOL. Even at 13, this was obvious flaw in the doctrine, but it should be a warning to others sending their kids to an SBC church. This is a group with fundamentally flawed values and theories. They are basically a political arm to farm people ingrained with radical religious based ideals.
edit on 22-6-2012 by finitedualities because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 



The majority of the population is extremly opposed to gay marriage. Why is that so hard for people to understand?


The majority of the population was opposed to DE-segregation. What is your point?


However, like it or not, as it stands the majority do not want this.


The majority didn't want desegregation or interracial marriage being legal.





The media is hyping this "gay rights" because they, the powers that be, want people squabbling over bull crap that doesn't matter.


Then stop opposing it if you think it doesn't matter.


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



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by kaylaluv
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.

This whole argument started because its a religious sacrament. There are even more churches, powerful ones, who are against this. I believe that if they simply called it a “civil union” the whole issue would go away, but you have groups who want to push for the legal term “marriage” because this has become a grudge between the two.


Do you think the powerful churches are against atheists getting a marriage license from the state? Hmmm, haven't heard any of them demand that atheists get a civil union license. There are powerful churches that are against homosexuals, period. That's not what this is about. This is about equality - and the "grudge" is with the government, who should be issuing the exact same license to gay unions as is issued to heterosexual unions. extra DIV



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
BS. Who are you to say what marriage means to ANYONE?

First off, I don't believe in state-run marriage. If you love someone why do you need the state to authenticate it for you? For the benifits? Well, if that's all it's about you shouldn't be getting married in the first place. Secondly, I wasn't saying what marriage means to anyone I was talking about the word marriage, that it means more to the religious. Don't try to put words in my mouth.
edit on 22-6-2012 by MrSandman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


This right here is a very interesting quote.



It is a historical fact, if you'd even bother to open a history book, that when the liberal ideas begin to take over, and morals and ethics decline - a country falls apart.


However I don't agree.



Ask Afghanistan how they faired under Taliban rule.



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

Originally posted by MrSandman

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

First off, I don't believe in marriage. If you love someone why do you need the state to authenticate it for you? For the benifits? Well, if that's all it's about you shouldn't be getting married in the first place. Secondly, I wasn't saying what marriage means to anyone I was talking about the word marriage, that it means more to the religious. Don't try to put words in my mouth.


t's a good thing you aren't forced to get married, then, isn't it? It's nobody's business why two people get married. They marry for love, for children, for money, for security, for all kinds of reasons. The state doesn't ask that question when it issues a marriage license.

How do you know the word marriage means more to the religious? And don't forget, there are many, many religious gays out there.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 



Originally posted by kaylaluv

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





No offense but...The same-sex marriage advocates who today congratulate themselves as freedom fighters in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Pope John Paul, Gandhi, and Lech Walesa are misconstruing the significance of what these leaders accomplished in the face of ACTUAL TYRANNY. Whether they mean to or not, the gay marriage movement is confusing the civil rights struggles against slavery, racism, and totalitarianism with something very different...
their desire to redesign ONE OF HISTORY'S FIRST/MOST IMPORTANT cultural institution in a manner that will eventually render it meaningless.

Those who contend that marriage is a civil right must contend with additional questions. Is graduation from school a civil right? Is a government job? How about being a son, or a daughter, an uncle, or an aunt? What about a graduate degree? Employment? Housing? Health? Business ownership? A driver's license? Membership in the National Organization of Women, the NBA, the PTA, the AARP, the Priesthood?

Just as it is with these institutions and definitions, so it is with marriage...
each one is defined with exclusions in place, and once it becomes anything we want it to be, it is nothing at all. Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. It has nothing to do with first- or second-class citizenship. Marriage either has an enduring, unchanging definition, or it will have no definition.

Homosexual couples have the right to a civil unions.
They are accepted in our society as equal people without nearly the amount of bigotry other races/ethnicities have faced.
Why is this not enough for them...why do they want the institutional marriage to be re-written.
Its as though when it comes down to it, the gay/lesbian community want the country to say its "OK" that you are homosexual.
Why would they care other wise

Someone stated in an earlier post, that medical studies have proved homosexual brains function differently than heterosexual((personally i find that suprising/hard to believe) But if so why should a society be forced to accept and encourage a relatively small group of people with a mental disfunction as being a natural part of our institution

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

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



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Precisely. Which is why we MUST separate church and state wrt Marriage in general.
If two people co-habitate and sign some documents to get benefits, I'm cool with that.

If two people want to stand before a Christian or Catholic Priest and swear their vow of love, togetherness and commitment to each other before God then I call that MARRIAGE and as such would be a function of the Church - not the State - at which point this debate would be over because the Church can set any policy it wants without regard to how their believers feel.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseeker808
 


Your arguments are filled with the same memes that pop up every gay marriage debate so I'm not going to address them all.

To sum it up;

I view gay couples the same exact way as straight couples. They should be legally allowed to marry, like a straight couple.


Marriage is an institution


So are schools. And separate but equal was ruled illegal.


Not a civil right.


Really?


Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 22-6-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


and arab spring was supposed to be the rise of democracy in egypt...

it seemed like a good idea at the time....the taliban wanted to get rid of the communist regime.
Before Mohammad Najibullahr fell from power , they employed typical muslim extremist tactics.
Using lies and deception, while hiding their true nature.......
That is until they gained their foothold in power



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by MrSandman

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

First off, I don't believe in marriage. If you love someone why do you need the state to authenticate it for you? For the benifits? Well, if that's all it's about you shouldn't be getting married in the first place. Secondly, I wasn't saying what marriage means to anyone I was talking about the word marriage, that it means more to the religious. Don't try to put words in my mouth.


t's a good thing you aren't forced to get married, then, isn't it? It's nobody's business why two people get married. They marry for love, for children, for money, for security, for all kinds of reasons. The state doesn't ask that question when it issues a marriage license.

How do you know the word marriage means more to the religious? And don't forget, there are many, many religious gays out there.


Gays are declaring their love to the state, Religious declare their love to God.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke


Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.


The concept of rights has largely been completely devalued by contemporary cultural Marxism; which was, of course, entirely the point all along.


The game was to create a scenario where people redefine the term "right," to mean, "anything I damn well want," whereas the term previously meant, "that which a person cannot continue to biologically survive without."

Within the context of homosexuality, being sexually active is not a requirement for continued biological survival. You can try and bring up gay teens killing themselves here as a means of obfuscation if you like; but that is all it is. I'm not talking about psychology here; I'm talking about whether or not actual physical life will cease. Sex is not something that a person will die without.

The one concept that is always left out of any debate on homosexuality, is abstinence or celibacy. Gays never bring that up or talk about it, because once they do, the game is over. The only means they have of gaining sympathy with people who would otherwise be opposed to them, is to convince their opponents that sex is an actual need; and it is not.

This is, as I've said before, the one thing that I am sick of where homosexuality is concerned; the degree of habitual dishonesty that is engaged in by gay advocates, in order to get what they want. They will lie, distort, or twist anything they have to, any WAY they have to, in order to get what they want.

If that means claiming or implying that sex is something which human beings literally cannot physically survive without, then fine. If that means implying that homosexuality is genetic, irrespective of whether there is hard evidence for that or not, then fine.

There is no rhetorical integrity. There is absolutely none whatsoever. The ends are considered to be the only thing of any importance; the means are considered not merely justified, but entirely irrelevant.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

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



That is the most childish and asinine position of argument any thinking person can take.

Life evolves. There was a time when procreation was necessary. It isn't any more.

However - the only logical reason for opposite gender couples is natural procreation - - which is no longer the only option. With modern technology anyone can reproduce (not that there is anything wrong with a homosexuals reproductive system). Besides many hetero couples use IVF with donated sperms/eggs - - as well.

Today is about quality of life - - not propagating the species.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Today is about quality of life - - not propagating the species.


You might want to see if you can disengage from your blatant Fabian mind control, Annee, for long enough to think...really think hard...about the implications of the above statement.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSandman

Gays are declaring their love to the state, Religious declare their love to God.


And what do Atheist declare their love to? Since they can legally marry?

Try getting married by god - - - without a state license.

Besides that - - - do you seriously believe Homosexuals dump their God - - just because they were born with same gender attraction?

Many gays want to be married in church in the eyes of their God as well.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by Annee
Today is about quality of life - - not propagating the species.


You might want to see if you can disengage from your blatant Fabian mind control, Annee, for long enough to think...really think hard...about the implications of the above statement.


No - I don't think so.

Science is close to propagating through cloning.

What the hell is Fabian mind control. Maybe you should consider speaking plainly - so other posters can understand what points of view you are trying to put forward. No one needs mind puzzles.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join