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.

 

Do Gays want a LEGAL Right to a Legal Contract? Or are they Trying to Legislate Christian Doctrine?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 

Actually, on the technical level, they always have had the right to marry: A gay man can marry any woman he wants--there's no law stopping this. And before we get into whether or not they desire or love their spouse, think about how many hetero shotgun weddigns could state the same complaint?




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Everybody already has individual rights to do whatever they want.
It's when they decide to label and segregate themselves by demanding ___ rights when problems start happening.
But then again, the Democrat party is made up of many segregated groups by design.


Here's a nice and evasive, non-committal partisan post. Ha ha ha. Wow. No offense, but do you really believe in partisan issues? Do you really think the politicians in Washington care who marries who or abortions or whatever? Creating public discourse creates $$$$$ to fill their pockets....hell, most of the politicians have been charged, arrested, impeached, whatever for the same crimes they picket against! Wake up!! They don't care about you. They don't care about me. The belief in partisan issues is killing this country. When it comes down to it democrats want to give everyone's money away and republicans want to keep all the money in the hands of a few.

Anyone who still believes that this country runs via two political parties needs to take a look around. Look at what these politicians have done to this country!Trillions in debt, the rest of the world hates us, we're war-mongers feeding a socio-politico-economical-military machine. Private lobbyists have helped destroy this country. We have millions out of work, no manufacturing, record-high unemployment, city school districts that are closing by the dozens, it's out of control. Why do think people are shooting up churches and schools? Because people are tired of this country being run into the ground by Washington and all the BS issues. Now, have their been gay political figures with an agenda, sure, but at the end of the day, their just looking after themselves, not their community. Selfishness is inherent in every political party, in all of us, and everyone around the globe.

This country is failing...make a stand!
edit on 7-8-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Would gay people accept civil unions, if it granted the exact same benefits marriage does??? Or do they want the marriage title??



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jheated5
 


Some would, some wouldn't. The thing is the civil union has more chance of being expandable, in a way that benefits more people.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sensible1
 


i understand the op but most supporters of gay marriage wouldnt. from a christian perspective since marriage as an institution and binding act has ties to religion and principles of right attributed to relation between god and mankind; he(the op) is asking a valid question that the truth of makes the quest for "equal rights" pertaining homosexual marriage choice religious in an honest sense.

the gays want legal right to a moral inequality surmising from the social implications of their sexual perception; and the right to marry, since they want the right to marry and that comes with: relating the religious nature of marriage.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


AH and now you see the real problem.

That the government should have NEVER EVER got involved and made marriage a legal institution.

Since they did, they have an obligation, not only morally but lawfully, to provide that service/rights/privelege to ALL consenting and legal adults.

I agree 100%, it should be called marriage at ALL, it should be called Civil Unions, at the state and federal level.

These are contracts between you and a government body, not God or a church.

Denying these rights to a community based on moral ambiguity and hatred is just nonsense.

As for a church being legislated to perform gay marriages, that would be illegal, in any state, because it removes the freedom of religious organizations to do as they please within the confines of their own religious doctrine.

~Tenth



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


Oh, and before you go there:

"but the gay person doesn't want to marry the opposite sex."

Orly. Who said the point I was making wanted to marry? They want the legal rights, but not the marriage, but can't have it because we're making this about marriage.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 





As for a church being legislated to perform gay marriages, that would be illegal, in any state, because it removes the freedom of religious organizations to do as they please within the confines of their own religious doctrine.


Your right, it would be like a government employee banning a business from coming to his city based solely on their 1st amendment right for free speech.

And that would never happen.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Those are two very different scenarios.

That "business" isn't a church, doesn't have the same rights as one either.

Truthfully, that whole scenario is just symbolic, the Mayor can't actually prevent a business from operating in it's city without breaking the law, like not giving out the appropriate permits etc..

Which then would be argued and court and I'm sure that the "business" in question would win.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5
Would gay people accept civil unions, if it granted the exact same benefits marriage does??? Or do they want the marriage title??


Why not? What makes it not a marriage? As many on ATS has proved time and time again, marriage wasn't invented by religion and it was around long before Judeo-Christian faiths decided to define it.

There are many married couples in America who were married through religions other than Christianity... does that make them not "married"? What's the difference? Tend to your own flock and realize that no religion holds a monopoly on "marriage".

I hope to hell they don't stop at "civil union". I'm a straight dude and that would still piss me off.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Isn't that really the American dream? I don't need to dictate to someone else how they should live to find fulfillment in my existence. We have WAY too many people, on both sides of every debate, thinking they know the exact right way to live.

We don't. None of us know the perfect way to live, the perfect way to achieve salvation, etc. We have to find our own way.

If homosexuals want to be married, they should be married. If someone doesn't like it, that is their perogative.

IT'S CALLED TOLERANCE!!!! We are not going to like everything we see or hear, we need to learn to deal with that and be good to one another and our children, lest we send them to the same useless wars and riots that we face today.

I'm going to make it a point today to go out of my way to help someone. Maybe give a few dollars to that homeless guy on the corner of the Interstate that I see everyday on my way home from work. Something positive.

Anything but more hate, more bickering. I don't care how he spends my money, I care about trying to treat someone else well today... well, other than my wife and two boys


edit on 7-8-2012 by Dreine because: snoochie bootchies



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by benrl
 


AH and now you see the real problem.

That the government should have NEVER EVER got involved and made marriage a legal institution.

Since they did, they have an obligation, not only morally but lawfully, to provide that service/rights/privelege to ALL consenting and legal adults.

I agree 100%, it should be called marriage at ALL, it should be called Civil Unions, at the state and federal level.

These are contracts between you and a government body, not God or a church.

Denying these rights to a community based on moral ambiguity and hatred is just nonsense.

As for a church being legislated to perform gay marriages, that would be illegal, in any state, because it removes the freedom of religious organizations to do as they please within the confines of their own religious doctrine.

~Tenth


I TRULY believe that the aim is not LEGAL RIGHTS, but some kind of MORAL "atta-boy" from the Government, to say that churhes that believe homosexuality is an abomination should be legally bound- TO CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS... If the government gives this endorsement, thats their call.. We can't project that onto the church as a belief system without our society crumbling from the lack of moral fiber and support for the traditionally reporoductive family..



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Dreine
 


General rule of thumb is: your liberty ends at my life, my pursuit of happiness ends at your liberty. As far as this axiom is concerned, there's nothing wrong with Gay Marriage, irrelevant of it changing the definition of the word. lol



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sensible1
 



I TRULY believe that the aim is not LEGAL RIGHTS, but some kind of MORAL "atta-boy" from the Government, to say that churhes that believe homosexuality is an abomination should be legally bound- TO CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS...


That's literally impossible. You think what you want, but you'd be wrong on so many levels I cannot start to explain to you..

Nobody in the gay community has ever asked for this. Please show me evidence. Otherwise it's just your opinion, backed up by an emotional argument and sorry to say, worth nothing.


If the government gives this endorsement, thats their call.. We can't project that onto the church as a belief system without our society crumbling from the lack of moral fiber and support for the traditionally reporoductive family..


Lol, that's also very untrue.

Please prove to me how homosexuality is somehow threatening the American family or causing America to crumble?

Do you think that killing 500 thousand Iraqi women and children + thousands upon thousands more in the war on terror is being morally just?

What about all the other indiscretions of your nation over the last 30 years? Moral fiber?

Yeah..right.


~Tenth



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensible1


I TRULY believe that the aim is not LEGAL RIGHTS, but some kind of MORAL "atta-boy" from the Government, to say that churhes that believe homosexuality is an abomination should be legally bound- TO CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS... If the government gives this endorsement, thats their call.. We can't project that onto the church as a belief system without our society crumbling from the lack of moral fiber and support for the traditionally reporoductive family..


Do you really believe this? Do you think that Christian churches will be forced perform gay marriage ceremonies? Seriously?!

You know that people can get married anywhere by just about anybody right?

How the heck would this "change their beliefs"?!



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by sensible1
 



I TRULY believe that the aim is not LEGAL RIGHTS, but some kind of MORAL "atta-boy" from the Government, to say that churhes that believe homosexuality is an abomination should be legally bound- TO CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS...


That's literally impossible. You think what you want, but you'd be wrong on so many levels I cannot start to explain to you..

Nobody in the gay community has ever asked for this. Please show me evidence. Otherwise it's just your opinion, backed up by an emotional argument and sorry to say, worth nothing.


If the government gives this endorsement, thats their call.. We can't project that onto the church as a belief system without our society crumbling from the lack of moral fiber and support for the traditionally reporoductive family..


Lol, that's also very untrue.

Please prove to me how homosexuality is somehow threatening the American family or causing America to crumble?

Do you think that killing 500 thousand Iraqi women and children + thousands upon thousands more in the war on terror is being morally just?

What about all the other indiscretions of your nation over the last 30 years? Moral fiber?

Yeah..right.


~Tenth



Let's not turn this into another "Evil America" thread... believe me, most Americans know too well the attrocities that have been committed by our government against the people of the world. It's just that, as a country we are too divided to even be able to agree that the sky is blue and that healthy grass is green. But back onto topic...

The federal government cannot dictate doctrine to the church, and likewise the church cannot leglislate to the state. Or that is how I understand the First Amendment... if I'm wrong, someone please enlighten me.
Seperation needs to be understood and practiced. If a church decided it is against gay marriage it should not have to perform those ceremonies. Likewise, if a church decides gay marriage is fine they should be allowed to perform the ceremony. And marriage should be a federal institution, not a religious one.

I took my marriage vows before my wife and God, not because I was married in a church but because that is what I believe in.

If a gay couple wants to marry before God, they don't need the church's permission. God is more than a building and a lobbying group.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Christainity once used its doctrine to support slavery, murder of non Christians, the seperation of races, killing other Chistians not thought to be Christian enough, wars of conquest, exterminating entire peoples etc. What we can conclude from this is that Christians will use doctrine to further whatever agenda they wish and change it when it is no longer accepted by most people. I think if Jesus was alive today he would be disgusted by the people who claim to be his followers.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I'm a little lost.... Actually a lot lost....

First of all - separation of Church and State.

Second of all - isn't Christian doctrine to treat others as you'd want to be treated?

Third of all - If you are of a belief that homosexuality is an affront to God and that marriage is a sacred institution - which is fine to believe... isn't that issue between God and the individuals who live their lives in this manner?

I do recall something about casting first stones and all...

Just my thoughts.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 





reply to post by sensible1 I TRULY believe that the aim is not LEGAL RIGHTS, but some kind of MORAL "atta-boy" from the Government, to say that churhes that believe homosexuality is an abomination should be legally bound- TO CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS... That's literally impossible. You think what you want, but you'd be wrong on so many levels I cannot start to explain to you.. Nobody in the gay community has ever asked for this. Please show me evidence. Otherwise it's just your opinion, backed up by an emotional argument and sorry to say, worth nothing. If the government gives this endorsement, thats their call.. We can't project that onto the church as a belief system without our society crumbling from the lack of moral fiber and support for the traditionally reporoductive family.. Lol, that's also very untrue. Please prove to me how homosexuality is somehow threatening the American family or causing America to crumble? Do you think that killing 500 thousand Iraqi women and children + thousands upon thousands more in the war on terror is being morally just? What about all the other indiscretions of your nation over the last 30 years? Moral fiber? Yeah..right. ~Tenth


well, there is one issue that matches what he tries to argue.

A church can lose its tax exempt status for keeping with their Ideology if it conflicts with public policy.

An example of this was desegregation... How many churches still teach that or hold that Ideology?

Tax Exempt status could be consider the "government' approval he talks about, and the Changing of doctrine and beliefs to accommodate said government approval.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Dreine
 



Let's not turn this into another "Evil America" thread... believe me, most Americans know too well the attrocities that have been committed by our government against the people of the world. It's just that, as a country we are too divided to even be able to agree that the sky is blue and that healthy grass is green. But back onto topic...


I was just pointing out the hypocracy in him stating that somehow gays are more likely to destroy the moral fabric of America, than a government that doesn't see a problem in murdering civilians.


The federal government cannot dictate doctrine to the church, and likewise the church cannot leglislate to the state. Or that is how I understand the First Amendment... if I'm wrong, someone please enlighten me.


Who ever said that same sex marrage affected the church? Nobody is asking any church to recognize marriages between same sex couples, nor do they expect that those churches will marry same sex couples.


If a gay couple wants to marry before God, they don't need the church's permission. God is more than a building and a lobbying group.


You're right about that. If only people understood that is a fight against the government, not religion.

reply to post by benrl
 



well, there is one issue that matches what he tries to argue.

A church can lose its tax exempt status for keeping with their Ideology if it conflicts with public policy.

An example of this was desegregation... How many churches still teach that or hold that Ideology?

Tax Exempt status could be consider the "government' approval he talks about, and the Changing of doctrine and beliefs to accommodate said government approval.


Where has this happened? When has a chuch lost it's tax exempt status because it refused to do something?

Are you arguing that churches should have a right to be racist bigots? Doesn't sound like much of a church to me.

In no way has anybody ever stated, or asked that church's loose their tax exempt status due to not wanting to marry same sex.

As listed above, nobody is asking the church to do that.

~Tenth



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join