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.

 

Chick-fil-A "non-story" exposes the Hypocritical agenda of LGBT Community.

page: 29
51
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

So.... You see nothing is a civil right. They are all civil privileges.
You have NO RIGHT to gay marriage. You have a privilege to gay marriage, if it is even given to you


I just skimmed your comment, but I thought I might point everyone on this thread towards this excellent Secular Case Against Gay Marriage. They make essentially the same point you do: marriage is not considered an inalienable right by the states in the same way one's life or liberty is.


Here is an excellent rebuttal to the article you linked:

squashed.tumblr.com...




posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Thanks kaylaluv!

I skimmed it, and I'd suggest people read both. In my opinion, the Squashed article focused a bit much on the more emotionally charged side of the equation ("When we talk about rights, make sure we don’t forget that that my friends in same-sex relationship may end up dying without the person they love most because of hospital visitation policies") and started from the a priori position that denying homosexuals "the right to marry" was unjust. However, he did have a few good points. For instance, "Are there any rights without exceptions?" and "In reality, marriage predated formal state recognition of marriage."



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


if you say marriage is a basic human right whats to stop a single man draging a single woman into church against her will(caveman style) and demanding his right to get married?

i also think its hypocritical that you dont see lgbt groups protesting their local imams for preaching hatespeech against lgbt,or for the right to get married in a mosque,they know theyd get their asses kicked.
edit on 11-8-2012 by erictcartman because: went a litle off topic



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by erictcartman
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


if you say marriage is a basic human right whats to stop a single man draging a single woman into church against her will(caveman style) and demanding his right to get married?

i also think its hypocritical that you dont see lgbt groups protesting their local imams for preaching hatespeech against lgbt,or for the right to get married in a mosque,they know theyd get their asses kicked.
edit on 11-8-2012 by erictcartman because: went a litle off topic


Haha, that's actually a good question. I think I agree with you on that.

And yeah, except I doubt they are particularly lobbying for Christian marriages either, just legally binding ones.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

I don't think a Deistic concept "won out," because I don't think there was really a battle between Deists and Christians. I think that the concept of keeping the federal government out of church orthodoxy won out, but I believe both Christians and non-Christians worked together towards that goal.


Thanks - - like the post.

Remember that if we get in heated opposition in the future - - LOL



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 



In my opinion, the Squashed article focused a bit much on the more emotionally charged side of the equation ("When we talk about rights, make sure we don’t forget that that my friends in same-sex relationship may end up dying without the person they love most because of hospital visitation policies") and started from the a priori position that denying homosexuals "the right to marry" was unjust. However, he did have a few good points. For instance, "Are there any rights without exceptions?" and "In reality, marriage predated formal state recognition of marriage."


This is where those who support gay marriage fall on ignorance.

Marriage no longer applies in the biblical context.
Marriage is a legal contract, and with this legal contract, certain privileges apply.
Privileges very much desired by the gay community.

Let me make this point crystal freaking clear to all the gays and their supporters out there.

Appeals to emotion are logical fallacies.

Logical fallacies are persuasive arguments that superficially appear correct, but upon further examination, they fail to present a congruently persuasive cogent argument.
Simply put, they are just plain wrong.
Essentially, these arguments come from a place called la-la land that at first seems real, but upon inspection, it is found to the be ..... LA-LA LAND.

I don't care how much anger and vitriol someone might throw my way, because the plain fact is that UNTIL THE LAW gives gays the right to marry, then they will not have it.
It is NOT their supposed right.
They do not have a right to anything.
They have privileges given to them by our government, which can not only be given, but also taken away.

All this hullabaloo about "my civil rights".... pure poppycock.

You people don't even know what civil rights are.

I, personally, think that gays should have the right to contract regarding marriage, but what I cannot stand is the voluminous abundance of ignorance permeating the board.

You people need to let go of emotion because it is irrational.
It is irrational people, as in not based in logic and reason.

Start reading history and do the world a favor and rise up from the dazed and easily lead masses.


"Are there any rights without exceptions?"


YES. There are rights with exceptions. Go to your local college and look for the "free speech zones".


Civil Rights are given by the LAW, and that which giveth can certainly take away.


"In reality, marriage predated formal state recognition of marriage."


If marriage predated the formal recognition of state, then live that type of marriage.

What the gays want are the legislated privileges that come with a marriage contract.
They feel like it's their civil right, but yet they are too lazy to understand that civil rights are not freaking rights.
THEY ARE CIVIL FREAKING PRIVILEGES.

PRIVILEGES that can be granted to whomever and taken away from whomever.
The only civil "right" immutable by law (but only on a limited basis) is the right to due process.

Unless, of course, one is deemed an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo.
(civil privileges)

And there, you are tortured.

The world that you were told surrounded you during elementary school is a lie people.
The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy are not real.
And neither are these supposed rights that y'all keep screaming about.

Man up and get used to it.
Educate yourself and make a real change for once in your pathetic lives rather than spout impetuous, hysterical, and impassioned rants with little to no substance, while convincing no one, at least anyone with a modicum of intelligence, that you haven't just escaped from an institution.
edit on 13/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Thanks Annee; I certainly will remember it.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see about the heated opposition bit, but there's nothing wrong with a little debate. I know I have a lot left to learn.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

You people need to let go of emotion because it is irrational.


You sure showed us how to post without emotion.

Civil Rights - - Citizen's Rights in a secular government.

EQUAL - - self explanatory.


edit on 13-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 



In my opinion, the Squashed article focused a bit much on the more emotionally charged side of the equation ("When we talk about rights, make sure we don’t forget that that my friends in same-sex relationship may end up dying without the person they love most because of hospital visitation policies") and started from the a priori position that denying homosexuals "the right to marry" was unjust. However, he did have a few good points. For instance, "Are there any rights without exceptions?" and "In reality, marriage predated formal state recognition of marriage."


This is where those who support gay marriage fall on ignorance.

Marriage no longer applies in the biblical context.
Marriage is a legal contract, and with this legal contract, certain privileges apply.
Privileges very much desired by the gay community.

Let me make this point crystal freaking clear to all the gays and their supporters out there.

Appeals to emotion are logical fallacies.

Logical fallacies are persuasive arguments that superficially appear correct, but upon further examination, they fail to present a congruently persuasive cogent argument.
Simply put, they are just plain wrong.
Essentially, these arguments come from a place called la-la land that at first seems real, but upon inspection, it is found to the be ..... LA-LA LAND.

I don't care how much anger and vitriol someone might throw my way, because the plain fact is that UNTIL THE LAW gives gays the right to marry, then they will not have it.
It is NOT their supposed right.
They do not have a right to anything.
They have privileges given to them by our government, which can not only be given, but also taken away.

All this hullabaloo about "my civil rights".... pure poppycock.

You people don't even know what civil rights are.

I, personally, think that gays should have the right to contract regarding marriage, but what I cannot stand is the voluminous abundance of ignorance permeating the board.

You people need to let go of emotion because it is irrational.
It is irrational people, as in not based in logic and reason.

Start reading history and do the world a favor and rise up from the dazed and easily lead masses.


"Are there any rights without exceptions?"


YES. There are rights with exceptions. Go to your local college and look for the "free speech zones".


Civil Rights are given by the LAW, and that which giveth can certainly take away.


"In reality, marriage predated formal state recognition of marriage."


If marriage predated the formal recognition of state, then live that type of marriage.

What the gays want are the legislated privileges that come with a marriage contract.
They feel like it's their civil right, but yet they are too lazy to understand that civil rights are not freaking rights.
THEY ARE CIVIL FREAKING PRIVILEGES.

PRIVILEGES that can be granted to whomever and taken away from whomever.
The only civil "right" immutable by law (but only on a limited basis) is the right to due process.

Unless, of course, one is deemed an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo.
(civil privileges)

And there, you are tortured.

The world that you were told surrounded you during elementary school is a lie people.
The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy are not real.
And neither are these supposed rights that y'all keep screaming about.

Man up and get used to it.
Educate yourself and make a real change for once in your pathetic lives rather than spout impetuous, hysterical, and impassioned rants with little to no substance, while convincing no one, at least anyone with a modicum of intelligence, that you haven't just escaped from an institution.
edit on 13/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)


I think I agree with you. I believe in some unalienable rights, but I think, as you said in an earlier post, they are given to us by our Creator (Natural Law.) Many of the rights we enjoy today have no such source. For instance: voting rights.
God did not hand the right to vote to people on a silver platter from heaven. There is no such right. And when the US of A was founded, only a small percentage of the population had the right to vote.
And I think you hit the nail on the head-if marriage predates its legal recognition, then homosexuals do not need legal recognition to be married.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

And I think you hit the nail on the head-if marriage predates its legal recognition, then homosexuals do not need legal recognition to be married.


Anyone can have any kind of ceremony they want.

Legal marriage is a contract created by government. This particular contract affords certain privileges not afforded by any other means.

It is discriminatory to deny these privileges to someone - - because you don't accept their birth difference.

Whether it is right for the government to have created this contract is a different discussion.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

And I think you hit the nail on the head-if marriage predates its legal recognition, then homosexuals do not need legal recognition to be married.


It is discriminatory to deny these privileges to someone - - because you don't accept their birth difference.

Whether it is right for the government to have created this contract is a different discussion.


Meh. Discrimination is not always a bad thing. I know some treat it like it's a synonym of "racism" or something, but it's not. Before we end "discrimination," we need to ask ourselves: is our discrimination justified? I have no problem discriminating, in certain areas, against murderers and other criminals, for instance. And I think that some criminals (for instance, psychopaths who murder people) have just as much a valid claim to being "born that way" as homosexuals do.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

And I think you hit the nail on the head-if marriage predates its legal recognition, then homosexuals do not need legal recognition to be married.


It is discriminatory to deny these privileges to someone - - because you don't accept their birth difference.

Whether it is right for the government to have created this contract is a different discussion.


Meh. Discrimination is not always a bad thing.


There is no logical reason to discriminate against gays. Religious belief is not a logical reason.


I know some treat it like it's a synonym of "racism" or something, but it's not.


It is exactly the same thing. Born with dark skin (Mark of Ham) - - - Born with same sex orientation (Leviticus)

Neither can be justified by religious belief.


Before we end "discrimination," we need to ask ourselves: is our discrimination justified?


Birth difference is not justified discrimination. I believe it was once illegal (or tried to make it illegal) for Mentally Challenged to marry.


And I think that some criminals (for instance, psychopaths who murder people) have just as much a valid claim to being "born that way" as homosexuals do.


So do I. They already have the right to marry.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Actually, religious belief is a perfectly logical reason to ban same-sex marriages if your religion tells you to. Logic does not come from a void; it is built upon presuppositions. For instance, killing off the Jews and attempting to create a race of ubermench was a perfectly logical thing for Hitler to do once he accepted the presuppositions of radical Darwinism/survival of the fittest (and a couple more). In fact, discrimination against homosexuals is perfectly rational even under a more benign interpretation of Darwin, because Darwinism is all about passing on superior genes--something homosexuals are incapable of. So there are lots of logical reasons to discriminate against homosexuals, it just depends on your presuppositions. In fact, given the correct presuppositions, one can logically arrive at almost any conclusion. Logic is all about (If A, then B.) The real question we need to be asking is, is A correct??


It is exactly the same thing. Born with dark skin (Mark of Ham) - - - Born with same sex orientation (Leviticus)


Erm, no. Discrimination is not treating everyone the same. Racism is believing people are different because of the color of their skin. Racism is a form of discrimination. So is revoking the voting privileges of felons. But one is wrong, and one is not.

I think you kinda missed my point on psychopaths (I probably did not make it clear enough.) Essentially, what I was saying is, the claim to "being born that way" does not justify a person's actions.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
reply to post by Annee
 


Actually, religious belief is a perfectly logical reason to ban same-sex marriages if your religion tells you to. Logic does not come from a void; it is built upon presuppositions.


It may be logical or justified by the person who has a certain belief. But - then again - it may be something very spiritual for a person of another belief. Some Native Americans considered it very spiritual.

But in the last case against Prop8 - - - religion was ruled out as a valid argument against same sex marriage.

America is a secular government - - like it or not. Freedom of religion - is also freedom from religion.

I was raised Christian. I was Christian most of my life until I stepped completely out of the "god circle". So don't think I don't understand the Christian side. I speak what I know (unlike some Christians who slam Mormons and Islam - - with no real knowledge of either).



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
Racism is believing people are different because of the color of their skin.


And how is that different from a person born with a sexual orientation difference?

It isn't.


I think you kinda missed my point on psychopaths (I probably did not make it clear enough.) Essentially, what I was saying is, the claim to "being born that way" does not justify a person's actions.


I did not miss your point.

Where is the victim in homosexuality?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

It may be logical or justified by the person who has a certain belief. But - then again - it may be something very spiritual for a person of another belief. Some Native Americans considered it very spiritual.


Bingo!



America is a secular government - - like it or not. Freedom of religion - is also freedom from religion.


What do you mean, freedom from religion? Because if it means what it sounds like, that's completely untrue. I want religion out of government as much as the next guy--prolly more. But even in the early days of America, the government was intimately involved in religion. The state governments regulated it, and the federal government was affected by it. I'm personally glad that the state governments no longer regulate religion. But the idea that there is "freedom from religion" in the US is not true, if by that you mean the freedom not to have others express their opinions to you, and try to vote according to their religious dictates. I personally prefer that laws have a basis in something other than religious belief, but you cannot stop people from voting how they wish. And completely divorcing law from any idea of a Creator (even if it is merely Nature's Laws and Nature's God) is a dangerous road to go down.


I was raised Christian. I was Christian most of my life until I stepped completely out of the "god circle". So don't think I don't understand the Christian side. I speak what I know (unlike some Christians who slam Mormons and Islam - - with no real knowledge of either).
I understand. But I'm not particularly interesting in arguing on anyone's side. I am interesting in arguing for what I believe is right. So please, don't lump me in with any particular category!



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 




The real problem with America is the removal of the family unit...

I agree 100%. I think a good place to start is trying to figure out why the divorce rate in this country is so high and stop worrying about gay marriage.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   


And how is that different from a person born with a sexual orientation difference?

It isn't.


Disagree here. You can't do anything about the color of your skin (okay, fine, I guess you can use a Sharpie or bleach or something, but you know what I mean) but you can control your actions. That's why I think murderers who claim they were "born that way" should be held responsible for their actions.


I did not miss your point.

Where is the victim in homosexuality?


IMHO, this is one of the best arguments for decriminalizing such behavior.
edit on 13-8-2012 by StalkerSolent because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by erictcartman
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


if you say marriage is a basic human right whats to stop a single man draging a single woman into church against her will(caveman style) and demanding his right to get married?

i also think its hypocritical that you dont see lgbt groups protesting their local imams for preaching hatespeech against lgbt,or for the right to get married in a mosque,they know theyd get their asses kicked.
edit on 11-8-2012 by erictcartman because: went a litle off topic


I don't see the local mosque preaching hatred and intolerance the way the Christian fundamentalists do. I also don't see Islam influencing government policy and organizing protests against gay marriage.

The Christian fundamentalists have a very one-track mind when it comes to gay marriage and gay rights. It's an immensely hypocritical one where selective reading of Bible quotes is routine.

When Islamic fundamentalists are affecting my rights the way the Christian fundamentalists are, then they'll see a fight. Right now, the only religious group in America and the UK screaming against gay people having basic rights, and influencing government policy, are the right-wing Christians.
edit on 13-8-2012 by detachedindividual because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
reply to post by Annee
 


Actually, religious belief is a perfectly logical reason to ban same-sex marriages if your religion tells you to.


And how do you propose that this happen in a multicultural and interfaith society?

What you are basically saying is that it's okay for a religious dictatorship to rule, as long as it's one of your religion, following your rules and persecuting people that you don't like very much.

How is what you suggest any different to a religious fundamentalist in Iran saying that it's okay for women to be stoned to death for being a victim of rape?

You're suggesting that this practice is okay, because the person in power has made that decision based on their faith?

This exposes the belief I have had from a very young age - those who are religious and with their rules to influence their entire society - even when such rules have no bearing on their existence - are nothing more than dictators using religion as an excuse to control others.




top topics



 
51
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join