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.

 

Define Christianity as Hate - The New Homosexual Agenda

page: 20
55
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   


You can do as you like. To try to make a rational comparison between the love of two people and the "love" of an inanimate object is fallacious at best, scary naive most likely, and nothing but propaganda at worst. On top of that, to get married (for the most part), it takes to people WILLINGLY ENTERING INTO THE MARRIAGE. If you can prove your dildo willingly wants to marry you, feel free.
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Or if I can somehow prove my naiive 13 year old Pakistani virgin wife who I never met is prepared to marry a 35 year old businessman in Seattle because her parents and my parents say so and arranged it, yes?




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Once again , learn some logic. You are making the absurd claim that if one is for gay marriage one is against all morals. One can accept gay marriage and still believe in en.wikipedia.org... .
edit on 8-8-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucius Driftwood
 



.....Because it's my fricking choice in the land of the free to desire and pursue happiness as I see fit


That's not the land I live in nor the land I support.

I don't support any and every belief is free to be pursued.

I do believe if someones actions violate humans rights the belief that the action sprung from should not be tolerated.

For instance the belief blacks are lesser human beings because they have dark skin. If I act on that belief by kicking them out of my coffee shop. Is the Christian community in this modern moral landscape going to rally behind me because I should be free to believe? No. Some beliefs are not to be permissible. In this particular case we again see a violation against LGBT Rights, against their civil equality.

You can dramatize and exaggerate but it's not good for discussion.
edit on 8-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood



You can do as you like. To try to make a rational comparison between the love of two people and the "love" of an inanimate object is fallacious at best, scary naive most likely, and nothing but propaganda at worst. On top of that, to get married (for the most part), it takes to people WILLINGLY ENTERING INTO THE MARRIAGE. If you can prove your dildo willingly wants to marry you, feel free.
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Or if I can somehow prove my naiive 13 year old Pakistani virgin wife who I never met is prepared to marry a 35 year old businessman in Seattle because her parents and my parents say so and arranged it, yes?


Nope, because we have laws in this country to protect the safety of children. A child cannot legally enter into a contract.

And you are still engaging in fallacy. Abuse of children is in no way equivalent to two consenting adults. I know you want to try every asinine case you can come up with to prove your point, but you are failing miserably.

NEXT.
edit on 8-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by sensible1
 


Are you fudging kidding me?

What about the heterosexual-agenda?

. Heterosexuals are in EVERY TV show!
. They advocate procreating even in the face of war, bad economies, food shortages and natural disasters.
. They get full rights from birth, they don't have to fight for marriage or health benefits. They get tax breaks for being in a marriage issued by the STATE GOVERNMENT, not the church.
. They are allowed to teach children as an OPEN HETEROSEXUAL. They can show love for another human being of the opposite gender in front of children, AND teach history only on heterosexual people! If someone is LGBT in history, they're ignored or conformed to heterosexuality!
. They get to run for office as a heterosexual! LGBT people can ruin their chances if they're open about themselves.
. They can donate money as an organization advocating opposite-gender marriages! And that's called freedom of 'speech'!
. [sarcasm] There are no openly gay people in sports just heterosexuals! To come out as LGB or transgendered as a sportsperson, say goodbye to your career! [/sarcasm]

Jesus, Holy, H, Christ.

Give it a rest.
edit on 8-8-2012 by voidla because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a look at this book might clear up some of the ignorance about Marriage within a christian context,, as Male to Male marriages were performed by the Church.

When a Medieval Knight could Marry another Knight



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Homosexuality is the result of gays jumping the bones of people they mistakenly thought were opposite sex.



I couldn't have said it clearer myself.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


There is the fallacy in your argument. You wish to give only a small segment of society a civil right while refusing to offer/give that exact same civil right to a polygamists or a pedophile or even someone wanting to marry a horse.
You can not define a civil right as pertaining only to your small segment and ignore the rest. Now who is bigoted?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr3dboot
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


There is the fallacy in your argument. You wish to give only a small segment of society a civil right while refusing to offer/give that exact same civil right to a polygamists or a pedophile or even someone wanting to marry a horse.
You can not define a civil right as pertaining only to your small segment and ignore the rest. Now who is bigoted?



I'm not quite sure what part of TWO CONSENTING HUMAN ADULTS ARE NOT THE SAME AS A CHILD/INANIMATE OBJECT/ANIMAL you don't understand, but it's pretty clear your not quite right in the head.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 


So it all takes place in pitch black rooms or something?


That's an impressive accident!



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   


Lucius Driftwood Learn a little logic and critical thinking skills and you will not appear so silly. You committed en.wikipedia.org... . You are making the fallacy that if one is for gay marriage one is against all morals.
reply to post by wittgenstein
 


Mr Wittgenstein, you make your own assumptions.
I made no assumption. Feed your own prerequisitions without me.
Embrace the 'little logic and 'critical thinking' by which you appear to irascibly define and deduce me.
My apparent silliness has brought you thus far.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Technically 'to marry' even scientifically means to combine dissimilar elements...
...so combining two of the same gender can't really be referred to as 'marriage'.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 




Interesting spin.

I enjoyed that. It was surely in jest, but I enjoyed it.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   


And you are still engaging in fallacy. Abuse of children is in no way equivalent to two consenting adults. I know you want to try every asinine case you can come up with to prove your point, but you are failing miserably.
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


No, you don't know, but effort on your part.
The enlightended ancient greeks were very fond of pederasty. Is this just a case of moral relativism?
I'm sure you can look that up for youself if you dare having such a title on your search engine.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter
Technically 'to marry' even scientifically means to combine dissimilar elements...
...so combining two of the same gender can't really be referred to as 'marriage'.


But what elements is it referring to, exactly? It can't be /just/ gender.
Technically, if one is Asian and the other White, wouldn't they be dissimilar elements? What about one with blue eyes and one with brown? Aren't they dissimilar elements? See where I'm going with this?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


I'm not equating any of it actually. My point, which you appear to be proving quite well, is that gay marriage selects a small segment of the American population who demand that their "civil right" is to marry. Polygamists have suffered persecution for years over this but you don't care about their "civil rights" do you?

Say a person wishes to marry a horse. A sick and twisted individual no doubt, but if one group get's to enforce a new "civil right", why not that person?

Pedophilia is yet another. Sick, yes. Disgusting? Yes. Would I kill someone like this for messing with my kids? Without losing a moments sleep. Yet they claim they were "born this way" just as gays, so here we are, two groups of society, both claiming they have no choice but to be that way, but only one group gets to have a "civil right"?

See, here is my problem with this. You want to force this nation to give you something because in the privacy of your home you want to engage sexually with another of the same sex. As consenting adults, do as you choose, but your bedroom practices do not equal a civil right my friend. Next this you know and bdsm people will demand a whip and ball marriage as a civil right.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

What is the scientific term for combining an element with the same element?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   


Nope, because we have laws in this country to protect the safety of children. A child cannot legally enter into a contract.
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


And you are harkening back to the same issue Annee made. Is this about US, or about Christianity as hate (all over the world)?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucius Driftwood
 


Sorry, my bed time (UK) will chat tomorrow....



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mr3dboot
 



Polygamists have suffered persecution for years over this but you don't care about their "civil rights" do you?


I would be open to exploring this.

I am skeptic on how loving and consensual that kind of arrangement is for the women though.




top topics



 
55
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join