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: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 

I find it strange how the majority is apparently against same sex marriage yet every time a national poll is taken over 50% are in favor of it being legal.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

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


I see; and that's going to be something positive, is it?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

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...


It's not that 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.


www.nccouncilofchurches.org...



their desire to redesign ONE OF HISTORY'S FIRST/MOST IMPORTANT cultural institution in a manner that will eventually render it meaningless.


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?


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?


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?


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.


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.



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


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?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

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?

Typical of the pro marriage debate, you push this
as a "civil rights" issue, because you know that no one wants to be thought of as opposing the rights of others.

The fact is, no one has any "right" to marry. Repeatedly asserting there is one, does not create one. Societies have always regulated who could marry.
Brothers and sisters cannot legally marry for example. Nor can anyone marry someone very young , multiple people, animals.... etc.....why?, because these are un-natural aspects
Courts have indeed recognized that there are rights to be protected, even if they are not specifically mentioned in the constitution.
But by contrast, claiming there is a "right" to same-sex marriage is a completely novel idea.
same-sex coupling is and always wil be labeled un-natural act in humanity


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


lol, i like how you turned this right back into a civil rights issue...cute
judges card....7/10

Once again You're comparing it to laws banning inter-racial marriage. There is no comparison.
The court decisions overturning these laws made clear that the institution of marriage shouldn't be hijacked to advance other objectives, in this case the rightly discredited idea that one "race" was superior to others. Marriage was only one tool.
Marriage clearly has nothing to do with race.
Certainly, we should treat all people with dignity and respect, but we must not sacrifice the true nature of marriage to do this

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



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 





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

first, "the church" is only 2000 years old
the institution of marriage is waaaaaaaay older and it is certainly not an invention of xtianity
and the state got involved loooong before abraham was a suckling

L
L
xtianity is running out of victims to persecute
in order to DEMONstrate their delusion of "righteousness"

it's the religi-crats who've kept this going: gays and lgbt people should have had these rights all along, or at least since the 60's-70's
if not for the conspiring of the bigoted self-righteous



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

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.


See, you are confusing sexual orientation with the sexual act itself. I seem to remember (maybe it wasn't you, but I think it was) you claiming to be abstaining from sex. If so, do you consider yourself a heterosexual? Of course you do, even if you aren't having sex anymore. It's not just about the sex act. I know a gay couple who are basically abstinent, but they love each other very much, in a way that is very different from two friends caring for each other. Just like an elderly heterosexual couple might not have sex anymore, but still love each other in a romantic way.

What two people do (or don't do) in their bedroom is really nobody's business, and shouldn't have anything to do with getting a marriage license from the state.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

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.


I do not believe that is correct.

Although - - that did come later with the Palatine migration of the 1700s. Who would be my ancestors.

The Southern Baptists are (at least in part) descendant from the original Puritans. Not Catholics.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
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?

See, you're not understanding what equal rights means.

Equal rights means that you, or anyone, can do something as long as it meets requirement A,B,C...Etc.
What you want is special consideration given to one group to waive requirement A.

That is NOT EQUAL RIGHTS...
Its a special privilege to a certain group to waive the rights that apply to everyone else.

I really don't have to argue, or explain it to you, its the law and therefore correct, like it or not. Its really inconsequential to me if you personally feel that its childish or asinine. Don't like it, change the law, I didn't write it... However, you might want to avoid getting into legal arguments about what is “equal rights” vs “special privileges” until you understand what equal rights actually means.


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

That is your opinion, its certainly not everyone's. Other people have the legal right to disagree with your beliefs on it. Their right to disagree is just as valid as your right to believe the way you do.

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 @ 08:16 PM
link   

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.


This is a false argument. Show me where the states that have legalized gay marriage have forced churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies. There are still churches that won't marry interracial couples, even after all these years that government laws allow it.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


History of Religion in the United States
The religious history of the United States begins more than a century before the former British colonies became the United States of America in 1776.

Some of the original settlers were men and women of deep religious convictions

Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the 17th century by men and women, who, in the face of European religious persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe.[1]

This is about as basic American History as it gets.

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 @ 08:30 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

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.


If God's laws trump man's law, how can man's law dictate who a preacher can and can't marry.

Christ made the sacrifice for our sins because everyone sins. No sin is greater than another, homosexuality included, with the only exception being unforgiveable sins. With that logic, saying gays can't marry because the bible forbids it, means even heterosexuals shouldn't be able to marry.

We're all going to sin. Why should one group's sins be held over them?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

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?


I graduated high school in 1964.

You do know what happened in 1964 - don't you? extra DIV



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
This is a false argument. Show me where the states that have legalized gay marriage have forced churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies. There are still churches that won't marry interracial couples, even after all these years that government laws allow it.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I don't know of any church who refuses to marry interracial couples, that is not even an issue Biblically speaking. Interracial marriages are well established in the bible. I can see where they might refuse a marriage between members of different religions, but even that is usually acceptable now in most religions, and also Biblically supported.

I would have to say any church refusing to marry two people of their denomination strictly on the grounds of race, would be open to a civil right lawsuit.

Again, I've never heard of this happening, can you give a source please?

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 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by OpsSpecialist
If God's laws trump man's law, how can man's law dictate who a preacher can and can't marry.
As long as the law does not directly conflict with the word of God, then most pastors place the laws of government under “give unto Caesar what is Caesar's”. There is biblical support for just government, giving just law, that is to be followed by man, as long as it's not in conflict with the laws of God.


Originally posted by OpsSpecialist
Christ made the sacrifice for our sins because everyone sins. No sin is greater than another, homosexuality included, with the only exception being unforgiveable sins. With that logic, saying gays can't marry because the bible forbids it, means even heterosexuals shouldn't be able to marry.

You are mostly correct, but you are forgetting something. You're also supposed to repent your sins. How can you be truly repentant of something when you have made a commitment to continue to live in that manner under sin?

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 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

This is about as basic American History as it gets.



And majority of the founding fathers were Deists.

Although Creator appears in the Declaration of Independence - - - it was not part of the first two drafts.

No god is in the Constitution.


edit on 22-6-2012 by Annee because: REMOVE MOD QUOTE



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Although Creator appears in the Declaration of Independence - - - it was not part of the first two drafts.
No god is in the Constitution.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Protection/freedom of religion is though.
Even if it does not specify what god.
Of course if they specified a particular God then they were already violating freedom of religion.

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 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker808

homosexual persons dont have to be married to raise a "family" or "love" each other....theres a different agenda here



Neither do heterosexual persons. Some people like the idea of being married - some don't. Those who want to get married should be able to. There's no different agenda. Now, people who get married strictly for money - THERE'S a different agenda... and yet we allow it without blinking an eye.





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


The church has a right not to marry you for religious reasons. The government is not a church, so what would be their justification for not issuing a marriage license?



Irrelevent...a Serial killers is forced to hide his true nature.


Ted Bundy got married while on death row - not exactly hidden.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

I don't know of any church who refuses to marry interracial couples, that is not even an issue Biblically speaking.


CURSE OF HAM

Black people cursed in the bible


If you no longer want to be a mental slave, you need to know that the black race is cursed in the bible. Since it is the most read, sold, translated and known book in the world, the least we can say is that it’s a problem. Christianity is the religion with the most followers,but just like Islam, its roots lies in Judaism (the old testament).

Here is the part from the bible where the curse occurs: (Genesis ch.9 v.20-27)

“And Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard.
And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brethren outside.
And Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
And he said, "Cursed be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
And he said, "Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”

www.afrostyly.com...



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join