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: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

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.


With Freedom.

Comes Freedom from.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

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


I'd say that is a gross mistranslation by someone to push a racial agenda. There are also people who try and say blacks are related to the “marking” of Cain, or birth of Esau. There is even more support for the story that King Solomon married the Queen of Sheba (Ethiopia), and had a son with him. There is nothing in the bible that speaks against interracial marriages.

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 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
With Freedom.
Comes Freedom from.

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


And your welcome to not believe, its your right to do so. Nothing in the law says otherwise.
None of this changes the subject of the thread through...
Sexual orientation is NOT presently a protected class, and not granted any special privileges or protections under US law.

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 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I don't understand why any person would care who another person chooses to marry.

The IRS might have a reasonable argument against gay marriage--due to loss of revenue from tax breaks.

But anybody else? ...I don't get it...

What's the motivation?
How does it affect you?
How is it detrimental TO YOU?
How does it infringe on your rights?
How does it infringe on your liberty?
How does it infringe on your personal pursuit of happiness...?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Annee
With Freedom.
Comes Freedom from.

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


And your welcome to not believe, its your right to do so. Nothing in the law says otherwise.
None of this changes the subject of the thread through...
Sexual orientation is NOT presently a protected class, and not granted any special privileges or protections under US law.

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


It is a protected class in many areas.

Special privileges? Lame.

How sad is it - - - that anyone in these modern times takes the "George Wallace" stance and attitude.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

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.



Here are a couple -

news.yahoo.com...

abcnews.go.com...-UnYMXKda8

I believe the Kentucky church did revoke their ban on interracial marriage, but not because of any legal action. it was because the community gave them so much grief about it.

I can envision a future where churches will justify allowing gay marriage because the bible encourages marriage, and discourages promiscuity, and because Jesus himself never condemned homosexuality. They will do this for the same reason they started condemning slavery, and stopped telling women not to wear pants - not because they were forced to by law, but because the church members evolved in their thinking, which causes the churches to evolve.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

I'd say that is a gross mistranslation by someone to push a racial agenda. There are also people who try and say blacks are related to the “marking” of Cain, or birth of Esau. There is even more support for the story that King Solomon married the Queen of Sheba (Ethiopia), and had a son with him. There is nothing in the bible that speaks against interracial marriages.


Actually NOT

The Curse of Ham/Mark of Cain was used by Christian fundamentalists to justify slavery.
edit on 22-6-2012 by Annee because: DAMN QUOTES!



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by truthseeker808



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.


Obviously theres an agenda.They want homosexuality to be legitimized in the public view.
If a homosexual person likes the idea of marriage, then why not just wear wedding bands, and call eachother husband/wife.
The whole argument just goes back to wanting it legitimized, and or to feel vindicated

Marrying for money is a problem, i argee...If same sex couples could marry then they would all be entitled to insurance benefits, Social Security survivors benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns.....this would become a problem





The government is not a church, so what would be their justification for not issuing a marriage license


Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)







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


you could have said "convicted" serial killer
im actually against people in prison getting married.
Especially prisoners condemned to death...whats the point?
Alsomany use it simply to be allowed sexual acts while incarcerated(where allowed)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Annee
It is a protected class in many areas.
Special privileges? Lame.

I suppose that you are one of those who believe that driving is a Constitutionally guaranteed right too? Cannot understand the difference between the “Right to travel” and the “Privilege to Operate”?

Sexual Orientation is NOT legally a protected class ANYWHERE in the US at this time.
Again the only protected classes are:

Protected Class
Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes characteristics or factors which can not be targeted for discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:
Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
Genetic information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Until you can give me and Act or Law that says otherwise, then you are incorrect. No matter how desperately that you may wish it to be different, it is what it is.

Originally posted by Annee
How sad is it - - - that anyone in these modern times takes the "George Wallace" stance and attitude.

Sorry, I didn't realize that pointing out your improper interpretation the law, when it doesn't agree with your personal and legally incorrect opinion of it, automatically made me a bigget.

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 @ 10:43 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Annee
Actually NOT
The Curse of Ham/Mark of Cain was used by Christian fundamentalists to justify slavery.

Answers right in what you re-quoted...

Originally posted by defcon5
I'd say that is a gross mistranslation by someone to push a racial agenda.


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 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker808

If a homosexual person likes the idea of marriage, then why not just wear wedding bands, and call eachother husband/wife.


Again, why doesn't *everybody* just do that?


Marrying for money is a problem, i argee...If same sex couples could marry then they would all be entitled to insurance benefits, Social Security survivors benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns.....this would become a problem



So maybe we should just outlaw all those benefits for everybody.





The government is not a church, so what would be their justification for not issuing a marriage license


Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

An act that is based on religious principles. Won't surprise me if it gets overturned in the near future.







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


you could have said "convicted" serial killer
im actually against people in prison getting married.
Especially prisoners condemned to death...whats the point?
Alsomany use it simply to be allowed sexual acts while incarcerated(where allowed)



Again, I think we should ban marriage for all ugly and stupid and poor people. I mean really, only the beautiful, smart, successful people should be allowed to get married for obvious reasons, right? Their weddings are fabulous, and their kids have the best chances for success.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Sexual Orientation is NOT legally a protected class ANYWHERE in the US at this time.
Again the only protected classes are:

Protected Class
Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes characteristics or factors which can not be targeted for discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:
Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
Genetic information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Until you can give me and Act or Law that says otherwise, then you are incorrect. No matter how desperately that you may wish it to be different, it is what it is.


Notice how all of these Acts happened long after the constitution was written. It took us a long while to realize that all these were civil rights issues. Just because sexual orientation is not included here now does not mean it's not a civil rights issue. It takes people speaking up and speaking out to make the necessary change. It will happen.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 
hello defcon5, just reading your earlier post am hoping you would explain this logic.

No, race is a discriminatory protected class: - true
“race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or handicap”.
also true, however, don't get ahead of yourself.

why ?? because that IS exactly the point.
discrimination based on the sex of the individual, nothing more, nothing less.

not the sexual practices of the individual but the gender of those participating.
when you discriminate as this "practice" does, it is still discrimination.

when the government is involved in the "contract" known as marriage, there can be no discrimination based on gender/sex. (or religious preferences either)

IF a F/M is accepted partnership, M/M and F/F must also be accepted, otherwise, it is discriminatory.


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.
sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue at all.
this is about gender discrimination, not sexual behaviors.
gender/sex discrimination is a protected class and it should be enforced.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Again, I think we should ban marriage for all ugly and stupid and poor people. I mean really, only the beautiful, smart, successful people should be allowed to get married for obvious reasons, right? Their weddings are fabulous, and their kids have the best chances for success.


Exactly! It is that idiotic.

I'm old enough to remember George Wallace - - the "Great White Hope" of the south.
I'm old enough to remember how things were before the Fair Housing Act
I'm old enough to remember how things were before the Disability Act
I graduated high school the same year the Civil Rights Act was signed.

I have ZERO tolerance for any one - - for whatever reason - - fighting against Equal Rights for Homosexuals.

Religion is a Choice.

Sexual orientation is not.


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



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

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


You're adding intent to it that it does not cover.

Can a man get married? …..Yes
Can a woman get married? ….Yes

Since both sexes can equally get married, its not sexual discrimination.
trying to stretch it to mean things it doesn't is not going to work either.

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 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Honor93
 

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


You're adding intent to it that it does not cover.

Can a man get married? …..Yes
Can a woman get married? ….Yes

Since both sexes can equally get married, its not sexual discrimination.
trying to stretch it to mean things it doesn't is not going to work either.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
i am not adding intent to anything, however, you, the church and the state are.
the "intent" of the marriage contract is not exclusive to "procreation" hence, it is not relevant.

if you are satisfied with your above answers (as i could be) why do you or any other feel the need or desire to dictate the remainder of that decision ?? is it yours to make ?

point is the "to whom" part is a nunya to everyone except the participants, M or F and to deny one or the other is discriminatory, as they are consenting adults.

not trying to diss my own argument here but based on your previous commentary, the above answers are not correct and here's why ... both end with "unless" / "except" / "excluding" or some phrase similar.
and in that context, the whole concept of State sanctioned marriage should be eliminated.
edit on 22-6-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Honor93
i am not adding intent to anything, however, you, the church and the state are.
the "intent" of the marriage contract is not exclusive to "procreation" hence, it is not relevant.

Yes you are, in fact sexual discrimination was never made to apply to marriage, but rather to concepts such as equality in the workplace, voting, etc... You're trying to ascribe intent to it that it was never about.


Originally posted by Honor93
if you are satisfied with your above answers (as i could be) why do you or any other feel the need or desire to dictate the remainder of that decision ?? is it yours to make ?

If I'm understanding you correctly, its pretty simple, there no sexual discrimination in marriage licensing, as both sexes can equally apply for, and be granted, a marriage license.


Originally posted by Honor93
point is the "to whom" part is a nunya to everyone except the participants, M or F and to deny one or the other is discriminatory, as they are consenting adults.

I don't believe that is denies anyone, it simply doesn't allow someone to marry anyone/thing without meeting certain basic criteria. There are other stipulations as well, such as age, relationship, previous marriage, etc...

I'm done with this for tonight, I'm starting to get a headache and have other work to complete.
Night...


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



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

if you agree that this is not a "civil rights" issue, i'm curious what civil rights do you think the Act provided that weren't already existing within the population?

did the act grant or recognize the existing equality of the persons involved ?
did the act establish rights or merely recognize that which already existed ?

see, that's the difference.
you and others claim ... they are asking for rights or special privilege to be granted and the other side is saying, no, these rights already exist, recognize them.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
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.


I agree with your post to an extent.

Consider this: A Christian homosexual couple wishes to marry, but legislation denies them that right. The legislation in question here, a system based on God's law, would seem to deny that right based on how a person wishes to practice their religion. The constitution clearly says you can practice your religion, but being homosexual, you are not entitled to the legal merits of that religion because of your sexual orientation. If marriage is characterized as a Christian union, then it should solely be a matter of the church. Otherwise, the state is enforcing its religious belief upon another. That is where it becomes not only a civil matter, but a constitutional matter.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

Yes you are, in fact sexual discrimination was never made to apply to marriage, but rather to concepts such as equality in the workplace, voting, etc... You're trying to ascribe intent to it that it was never about.
i would disagree and if i'm not mistaken the words "in all aspects of life" are mentioned more than once in the arguments along the way. just because what you said is what the MSM touted doesn't make it the whole story.
besides, equal rights are just that, equal.


If I'm understanding you correctly, its pretty simple, there no sexual discrimination in marriage licensing, as both sexes can equally apply for, and be granted, a marriage license.
and now you're slithering ... one can apply, not receive without first revealing their partner information.
IF the partner information prevents you from being granted a license, then it is not "equal".

IF the granting of licenses were "equal", the partner information would be secondary and non-impacting on the issuance.
the other stipulations you mentioned are state preferences, not Federal mandates.

good night and i hope you head stops hurting soon



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join