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

Originally posted by Annee
Science is close to propagating through cloning.

Originally posted by truthseeker808

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...

The Federal Bureau of Investigation reporting guidelines for the Federal Hate Crimes Statistic Act note: There are those who are victimized, sometimes subtly, and other times overtly, for no reason other than the color of their skin, the religion they profess, the heritage of their parents, or their sexual orientation. It is most unsettling to the victims because there is nothing they can do to alter the situation, nor is there anything they should be expected to change. Not only is the individual who is personally touched by these offenses victimized, but the entire class of individuals residing in the community is affected.[2]

“Homophobic violence, harassment, and discrimination do not exist in a vacuum: they are a product of the culture and current-events framework in which they occur,”[3] Consequently, this hostility remains socially acceptable, unlike hostility against other minority groups.

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.

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

Originally posted by RealSpoke
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.

REALLY?

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

Originally posted by kaylaluv
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.

First, marriage is a product of the church and the "state" got involved when there were legal benefits to being married.

Originally posted by petrus4


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.

Originally posted by defcon5

First off, you do realize that the reason the US was founded was for folks from Europe to escape religious persecution from the Catholic Church, right? So religion is one of the most highly protected rights under the Constitution.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by kaylaluv
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.

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

First off, you do realize that the reason the US was founded was for folks from Europe to escape religious persecution from the Catholic Church, right? So religion is one of the most highly protected rights under the Constitution.

Pastors are held accountable for their flocks under the Bible, and are held to a higher standard then everyone else. God promises greater punishment on them for leading their people astray, then anyone else in the Bible. Because of this, no one can tell a pastor what to preach from his pulpit, including the government. Gods law is considered a higher law, which trumps mans laws.

As an example, I had a relative who died, he was religious, but never belonged to a church. The pastor had a duty to our family to help us through this, but he also was not going to allow a funeral in his church, and that is his right to deny. He did arrange to have a Chaplin preform the funeral at the funeral home for us, out of compassion for the family, and an understanding of our grief. There is no law that required him to preform the ceremony in his church, in his official capacity, however.

Now...
What they are arguing for would force a pastor to agree to something that is strictly forbidden in the Bible, in his Church. Some pastors may feel that its not a big deal, and allow it, but most of your major religions disagree with the practice. Allowing this to become law could force this upon pastors, and cause civil rights lawsuits against those who refuse. Of course, that is exactly what the homosexual lobby wants. They want to have this rammed down the throats of those who refuse to believe in it, and give legal recourse against those who refuse to recognize it. They could essentially sue into bankruptcy any church refusing to marry them. That is a violation of peoples Constitutional right to freedom of Religion.

Religion is a protected class.
Sexual orientation is not.

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

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by truthseeker808


It's not that different..

i appreciate that you didnt completely stonewall my point.

Please explain how two people who love each other, want to possibly raise a family together, and commit to each other for life, render marriage meaningless? Isn't that what marriage is all about?

please explain why they must be married to do those things you stated
homosexual persons dont have to be married to raise a "family" or "love" each other....theres a different agenda here

If marriage is not a civil right, then I say we don't let stupid people, or ugly people get married. I hate stupid people and ugly people make me barf. And they'll only breed more stupid and ugly people - who wants that? If we have to let them join together, then let their unions be called a "stupid persons license" or an "ugly persons license", because if we call it a marriage license, it will ruin the whole beauty of the institution of marriage, right?.

refer to post above

A marriage license is a civil license, because it it handed out by the state to its citizens. A church is not a civil institution, so it is not required to abide by civil rights of citizens. There are still churches who refuse to marry interracial couples.

yea you dont have to be married in a church...whats your point?

Serial killers' brains function differently, but even they can get a marriage license. A gay person doesn't want to hurt anyone, they just want to marry the one they love - why can't they get a marriage license?

Irrelevent...a Serial killers is forced to hide his true nature.
A homosexual person could do the same technically... under the guise of a heterosexual union...
Instead they want it set in stone as" homosexuality is right"
do they have to get married....NO....but why do they want it to be accepted as so?

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by kaylaluv
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.

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

First off, you do realize that the reason the US was founded was for folks from Europe to escape religious persecution from the Catholic Church, right? So religion is one of the most highly protected rights under the Constitution.

Pastors are held accountable for their flocks under the Bible, and are held to a higher standard then everyone else. God promises greater punishment on them for leading their people astray, then anyone else in the Bible. Because of this, no one can tell a pastor what to preach from his pulpit, including the government. Gods law is considered a higher law, which trumps mans laws.

As an example, I had a relative who died, he was religious, but never belonged to a church. The pastor had a duty to our family to help us through this, but he also was not going to allow a funeral in his church, and that is his right to deny. He did arrange to have a Chaplin preform the funeral at the funeral home for us, out of compassion for the family, and an understanding of our grief. There is no law that required him to preform the ceremony in his church, in his official capacity, however.

Now...
What they are arguing for would force a pastor to agree to something that is strictly forbidden in the Bible, in his Church. Some pastors may feel that its not a big deal, and allow it, but most of your major religions disagree with the practice. Allowing this to become law could force this upon pastors, and cause civil rights lawsuits against those who refuse. Of course, that is exactly what the homosexual lobby wants. They want to have this rammed down the throats of those who refuse to believe in it, and give legal recourse against those who refuse to recognize it. They could essentially sue into bankruptcy any church refusing to marry them. That is a violation of peoples Constitutional right to freedom of Religion.

Religion is a protected class.
Sexual orientation is not.

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

Originally posted by defcon5

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

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

Too bad its the correct legal stand that's upheld by law then, eh?