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: 22
55
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr3dboot

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mr3dboot
reply to post by wittgenstein
 


Just proving a point. Bestiality=sick in my book, pedophilia even worse. However these are sexual choices by two groups of society. (both of which I would ban forever if given a chance). Gay sex is also a choice. Say there born that way? Pedo's claim the same.

The point is, a relationship and sexual activity between two adults of the same sex is a private matter and not a civil right. Gays however wish to force their sexual choices upon the rest of America and choose to ignore all of the legitimate reasons as to why this is not now nor ever should be a civil right.

If this status is given, mark my words, the darkest sexual deviants will line up also demanding that their sexual choices also be given equal status.



I still am at a loss that some people think marriage has only to do with sex. Perhaps people need to get educated on that topic, before they can handle such a topic as gay marriage.


Fine, so it's not about sex. Great, so let's given 'em marriage but make the sexual activity illegal, punishable by say 10 years in a federal pen. Bet you the tune changes then.


So now it comes out. Fair enough. You hate homosexuals so much that you want them imprisoned. Thats all I need to know about you.




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
“The point is, a relationship and sexual activity between two adults of the same sex is a private matter and not a civil right”
mr3dboot
You are taking two opposite positions in one sentence! Therefore, your argument is self-contradictory and therefore invalid.
1. It is a private matter. This implies that the law has no place there.
2. It is not your right to engage in that behavior. That implies that the law does have a place there.

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



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Believer101

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?

Last time I looked a penis is not a vagina...
...so when a penis combines with a vagina it is a marriage.

The term 'marriage' has come to apply to the cultural, ceremonial and later religious aspects that confirm or recognize this combination.

A penis placed in another orifice can not be referred to technically as 'marriage'...
...a 'marriage' can not be said to be consummated until penis and vagina combines...
...anything less is only heavy petting or mutual masturbation but not consummated 'marriage'...
...so technically two people of the same sex can never 'consummate' a marriage.

A heterosexual 'marriage' can be anulled if it has not been 'consummated'...
...that is it is not considered to have been a 'marriage'...
...and hand holding, kissing and mutual stimulation/orgasm is not the consummation of a marriage...
...so technically a same sex union can never be consummated so can never be a 'marriage'.

I can understand that two same sex people who are intimate friends and who mutually stimulate each others sexual organs may desire to have some mutual/legal relationship to define their responsibility to each others person and property but you have to considerably morph the word to mean something else to call this union 'marriage'.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by Believer101

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?

Last time I looked a penis is not a vagina...
...so when a penis combines with a vagina it is a marriage.

The term 'marriage' has come to apply to the cultural, ceremonial and later religious aspects that confirm or recognize this combination.

A penis placed in another orifice can not be referred to technically as 'marriage'...
...a 'marriage' can not be said to be consummated until penis and vagina combines...
...anything less is only heavy petting or mutual masturbation but not consummated 'marriage'...
...so technically two people of the same sex can never 'consummate' a marriage.

A heterosexual 'marriage' can be anulled if it has not been 'consummated'...
...that is it is not considered to have been a 'marriage'...
...and hand holding, kissing and mutual stimulation/orgasm is not the consummation of a marriage...
...so technically a same sex union can never be consummated so can never be a 'marriage'.

I can understand that two same sex people who are intimate friends and who mutually stimulate each others sexual organs may desire to have some mutual/legal relationship to define their responsibility to each others person and property but you have to considerably morph the word to mean something else to call this union 'marriage'.


So, marriage takes place at the time of intercourse? Crap, Ive got a lot of wives out there....

In case you didnt notice, there is a difference between the scientific definition of "dead", and the legal definition of "dead", of "father" of "mother". And many, many other words.

you guys are really trying hard, ill give you that
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 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 


Basically, what you're saying is...our land of the free, is NOT the land of the free?

You better pack your bags and leave the country, sir. You are now a terrorist in the eyes of the government, suggesting such things.


In all seriousness, I seriously doubt you even have a diploma, critical thinking skills like that. In the backwoods, it might pass...here, no. We pride ourselves on thinking clearly. What you're talking about is using your BELIEFS and OPINIONS to infringe on another person's right to practice their own religion. If it offends you, then go the hell away.

It's really not that hard. After all, we're not here to make you happy. So why should we lose our rights to please you? Go study the Constitution. You might learn something useful for once.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr3dboot
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I myself am not a polygamist so I can't speak to how loving it is for the women. Just making a point.




I was making a point too.

Each one will be addressed by society as they occur and we will deliberate the evidence and determine if, for instance, polygamy should be protected under law based on our moral understanding and everything else under the Sun that we use to make such determinations.

You, and others, are using this extreme slippery slope argument that if we allow gays to marry then as a direct result pedophiles will be allowed to marry. That's asinine. Similar arguments were used concerning interracial marriage. We didn't decide as a society people should be allowed to marry their dildos (to borrow from another member lol) as a result of interracial marriage.
edit on 8-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


Are you trolling?

...it's a serious question. ARE YOU TROLLING?!



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Facts are that some churches engage in a form of hate that Christ Jesus would have countered with the same righteous rage He used against the Pharisees of His time.

Perhaps, the Church could learn how to move from un-Bibilical hate toward more of an embodiment of Christ's love. If we could all just do that, we wouldn't have to point fingers or even ponder if there's hate in the so-called gay agenda. Somehow, most of us have missed the entire point of the Gospel.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Jesus, is the same person as God in the old testament. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand Christianity and shouldn't be stating what Jesus did or did not believe.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Asinine? In case you haven't noticed, this thread is full to bursting with asinine people, just straining and panting to take away civil rights for their own vilification.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
A 1-4% minority have every right to fight for their nature just as much as 2,000 year old tradition has to protect its own. In all of this, I'm reminded of something the Dali Llama once said during a teaching he gave in NYC. When asked about the subject of westerners converting to Buddhism, he said while a dedicated heart is a good thing, he questioned why one would choose to do so. In Tibet, there are Buddhists who are physically fighting and dying for their beliefs & culture. The Dali Llama asked why would westerners, with their own religious traditions, willingly choose to give them up for something different when one day it may not be there if enough people give it up. He was sadden over that thought.

Connecting to the topic on hand, if Christians give up fundamental teachings of their religion, at what point do you stop? Then once Christianity is no-more, what faith is next? Then political party... Then what else?

We have a rule of law so that we can find common ground in the public realm. The LBGT community should have every right to SAY what they want about Christians, just as Christians should have every right to SAY what they want about LBGT. Actions, we agree as a society are dealt with in law & courts.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mr3dboot
 


Actually, you'll find a lot of people arguing with you on that. I've seen the threads...and honestly, if such a thing isn't perfectly freakin' clear by now (after two thousand years) then I'd start questioning it myself.

If I weren't already, I mean.

And while we're on the topic, Jesus is neither here nor there. Last I knew, Obama was the president of the United States, so if you have a problem with the legality of homosexual marriage, then you should talk to him.

Not Jesus.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 



Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by kimar
 

Well, he may not have spelled it out, but it's not like he shied away from the conversation of Sodom.

From Chirst:

Matthew 10:15

"Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

Matthew 11:23-24

23 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. 24 "Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you."

Luke 10:12

12 "I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city.

Luke 17:26-29

26 "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 "It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; 29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.


Now, I've been clear, in the past, that the main issue in of Sodom wasn't homosexuality--homosexuality was merely the tool that they used to piss God off, but to state that Christ didn't even mention the stuff is to ignore what actually went on in Sodom, and the fact that Christ consistently used Sodom as a comparative tool--something that the Apostles followed Christ in--explaining in more detail.


Here's the verses explaining the "sins" of Sodom:

Ezekiel 16:49-50
King James Version (KJV)



49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.


Perhaps that's the reason why Jesus hasn't mentioned homosexuality as a sin of Sodom?

The city being destroyed has nothing to do with homosexuality.

I agree, I think the sin of Sodom was 'angel sex' to produce Nephyl.

Lot had three sons-in-law but the men of Sodom were not interested in Lot or the three young men...
...they only wanted the two 'messengers'...
...Sodom and its twin city may have been breeding hybrids...
...I think the homosexual story is a false flag (fag) cover for the real sin of Sodom.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I've heard of people marrying their toasters. It's a personal decision, it doesn't harm anyone (although I'm morbidly curious as to consummating the marriage) so it should be free game, right?

As long as you didn't steal the toaster.

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



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mr3dboot
 


No comment on those verses I provided?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Now your making assumptions. I don't hate anyone.
The argument was just made previously that this isn't about sex.
My post, was to solicit a response proving otherwise. Thank you for that.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 



So, that's what they want. Next, they'll want to deny Heterosexual couples the right to bear children, to gain full equality. Everyone will be required to adopt one of the test tube kids produced in the lab. They are not going to stop at a simple "marriage" label. Equality, is the goal.


Okay games over everyone. He figured out our master plan behind the radical homosexual agenda. Damn!

Who leaked the info to him??



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr3dboot
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Now your making assumptions. I don't hate anyone.
The argument was just made previously that this isn't about sex.
My post, was to solicit a response proving otherwise. Thank you for that.



And thanks, like I said, for stating that you wish to see all homosexuals imprisoned. As I said before, thats all I need to know.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I've heard of people marrying their toasters. It's a personal decision, it doesn't harm anyone (although I'm morbidly curious as to consummating the marriage) so it should be free game, right?

As long as you didn't steal the toaster.


I think anyone can have a ceremony for anything.

Legal is a different matter.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I'm not sure Obama is a good choice to speak to. Multiple gays from his former church in Chicago were murdered in mysterious circumstances after that Larry fellow came out claiming to have had a relationship with Obama.

Pick another poster child.

Besides, Obama won't be president much longer thank God.




top topics



 
55
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join