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.

 

Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

page: 52
19
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

I just can't stand those who think they should be able to tell people "You can't dislike homosexuals" Who gives you, or them that right? People should be free to like or dislike whatever they want.


Or those who dislike heterosexuals - or redheads - or Christians - or people who think they can deny Equality because of a God belief.

I stated in the beginning of this thread and repeated it at least once. My position is Equal Right of LEGAL Government Marriage.

I have said People are People.

Where have I said you had to like anyone?
edit on 29-7-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


Then if your marriage is special, no matter what any couple calls theirs or no matter what you calls yours, it shouldn't matter, if you know yours is special.

But it seems that a confused gay man took away what you thought was special, so now you seek to punish the gay community by taking away what could be special to them. How bitter.

Maybe if people stopped criminalizing gays, they won't be so confused and marry the wrong sex.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyJae

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by LadyJae
 


You might want to read this wiki about it:

en.wikipedia.org...


Thank you for the link, ESC.

From that same link:


While Genesis 9 never says that Ham was black, he became associated with black skin, through folk-etymology deriving his name from a similar, but actually unconnected, word meaning "dark" or "brown".


I didn't think the Bible stated the nature of the curse.



It doesn't matter. There are different interpretations in regards to homosexuals too.

Fact is - - it was used to justify slavery of blacks. Just as the bible today is used to condemn homosexuals.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyJae
 


Well, the truth is, the belief doesn't come from Ham, but some people, such as the Mormons and the KKK, believe that black skin comes from the Mark of Caine, the Caine who slew Abel.

I'm going to look into this some more, because I just realized that some people confuse The Mark Of Caine with the Curse of Canaan, Ham's son, who was Noah's grandson.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


Yes please make a thread, I am fascinated to read your theories about DNA manipulation in the womb by frequencies.
edit on 29-7-2012 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)


I have friends in the Russian military and their grandparents were too, rockets programs, ET programs, DNA manipulation programs, they cannot give details not untill for another 35 years, but i had long convos about this stuff with them, and i my self thought just like everyone else did, seriously i did, but 6 years ago, my mind was blown... these guys and the stuff they know and working on is out of this world.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyJae

Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by Annee
 


You want to replace homosexuality with blacks. Perhaps you support the Curse of Ham - - that people with dark skin are cursed by god and shall be slaves.

Its from the bible - ya know.


(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.”



Hello, Annee


Would you be so kind as to point out to me where, in the above passage, it states that Ham was cursed with dark skin?
edit on 7/29/2012 by LadyJae because: formatting


50-100 years ago, there were a lot of people who claimed it did just as there are people today who mistranlate things about homosexuals. 50-100 years from now, your grand children and great grandchildren will be wondering the same thing about homsexuality and the clobber passages used against them.

Unfortunately, as Annee is pointing out, there are still some KKK folks who still believe that blacks are a result of that supposed curse as well as many extreme right wing fundamentalist evangelicas that do tthe same.

What look back at it now as ridiculous. Future generations will do the same with us.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by LadyJae
 


Well, the truth is, the belief doesn't come from Ham, but some people, such as the Mormons and the KKK, believe that black skin comes from the Mark of Caine, the Caine who slew Abel.

I'm going to look into this some more, because I just realized that some people confuse The Mark Of Caine with the Curse of Canaan, Ham's son, who was Noah's grandson.




Although the Mormons don't claim that in today's world, they did as recently as 30 years ago.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


You don't have to directly say it. You and plenty of other posters have bashed anybody who is critical of homosexuals when they've been critical of homosexuals in any way shape or form, even when that criticism has nothing to do with homosexual marriage, supporting it or not supporting it or opposing.

Also, not supporting something is different than actively opposing something as well.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

50-100 years ago, there were a lot of people who claimed it did just as there are people today who mistranlate things about homosexuals. 50-100 years from now, your grand children and great grandchildren will be wondering the same thing about homsexuality and the clobber passages used against them.


That's the point.

It WAS used to justify slavery of blacks.

Nitpicking - - - interpretation is not relevant.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by Annee
 


You don't have to directly say it.


Excuse me?

I don't have to directly say - - what I'm accused of?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LadyJae
reply to post by LadyJae
 



Thank you for the link, ESC.

From that same link:


While Genesis 9 never says that Ham was black, he became associated with black skin, through folk-etymology deriving his name from a similar, but actually unconnected, word meaning "dark" or "brown".


I didn't think the Bible stated the nature of the curse.



It doesn't matter. There are different interpretations in regards to homosexuals too.

Fact is - - it was used to justify slavery of blacks. Just as the bible today is used to condemn homosexuals.


Yes, you are correct in that misinterpretation of the Bible has been (and is being) used to justify many evils. That does not, however, change the fact that nowhere in the quoted passage does it state that Ham was cursed with black skin.

Different interpretations of homosexuals? I'm afraid I don't understand. I thought you either were or weren't.

Regardless.

I am a Christian. I support equal distribution of rights to all..regardless of gender, religious affiliation, sexual preference. Marriage is but one of those rights.

J
edit on 7/29/2012 by LadyJae because: typo



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by LadyJae
 


Well, the truth is, the belief doesn't come from Ham, but some people, such as the Mormons and the KKK, believe that black skin comes from the Mark of Caine, the Caine who slew Abel.


The Mormons had nothing to do with slavery in the south.

Did you know the Fundamental Christians of the south are descended from the original Puritans?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Then why do you attack anyone who is critical of homosexuality?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyJae

Yes, you are correct in that misinterpretation of the Bible has been (and is being) used to justify many evils. That does not, however, change the fact that nowhere in the quoted passage does it state that Ham was cursed with black skin.


Well - - - I've never heard of a light skinned Canaanite.

Besides - - I think it says dark skin - - not black skin.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Shew, it sure is rough when all these people I really like are at odds with each other


Annee is my absolute favorite, the first person I met here at ATS, then OpinionatedB and MountainLaurel and LadyJae are very special as well, and Neno and Beezzer are my buddies from the other side of the political spectrum and I've always gotten along great with EvilSaddamClone and just gettin to know Nixie_Nox...and MidnightTide and TKDRL and Spiram have been involved in a lot of good conversations with me and RealSpoke is someone I almost always agree wtih and of course I consider ToTheTenth as one of my buddies....Then Domo and BenevolentHeretic and Detached and Kaylaluv and a bunch of others earlier in the thread.... I don't like seeing my "friends" disagree so much so I may bail out of this thread just so I don't watch so many people I like arguing about this stuff



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I didn't say it did. The belief in the Mark Of Caine having black is skin is older than the Civil War.

And you've been accused of insulting and berating anybody who doesn't agree with you on homosexual. You and other posters have berated other posters for disagreeing with some things about homosexuals. Everytime somebody has been critical of homosexuals in any way, regardless if it had anything to do with homosexual marriage or not, will bash them and call them bigots.

The message is clear.

You guys believe that homosexuals have to be completely accepted in society and can do no wrong no matter what.

Which is a far cry from homosexual marriage.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

50-100 years ago, there were a lot of people who claimed it did just as there are people today who mistranlate things about homosexuals. 50-100 years from now, your grand children and great grandchildren will be wondering the same thing about homsexuality and the clobber passages used against them.


That's the point.

It WAS used to justify slavery of blacks.

Nitpicking - - - interpretation is not relevant.


Yup, it very much was. It's just a shame that so many have used the bible to justify hatred for so long against so many
...or any other religious text



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


There's nothing wrong with a disagreement. The problem comes when people can't understand to not take the disagreement personally. many people, for some stupid reason, will take a disagreement personally. Why I don't know. But there it is.


That's one reason why one of my personal memes says "We all ahve to be the same and conform to the one true way!" because those kinds of disagreements insinuate that we all have to agree on the same things and all ahve to conform.

BAH!

TO HELL WITH CONFORMITY!

Chant it with me now:

DOWN WITH CONFORMITY!
DOWN WITH CONFORMITY!
DOWN WITH CONFORMITY!

NO MORE CONFORMITY!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 




Right at ya!


edit on 29-7-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by Annee
 


Then why do you attack anyone who is critical of homosexuality?



Attack? That is your interpretation. Do I call you names?

I try to make direct statements.

I am of course human - - but I try to make direct statements of my point/position - - - not argue.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join