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.

 

Quiet please....The ultra conservative, fundamentalist religious racist bigot is trying to speak!

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Marriage is a civil contract - one that has its earliest known roots in Sumer, predating any possible incarnation of a western "church" ( including Judaism ) by as much as 3,500 years - and even in Sumer it was considered a civil contract.

That carries through to today.

I have twice been legally married without having any church involvement whatsoever. The state licenses the marriage, and the courts handle the legalities of the contract. The Church does not have the power to do this. I cannot be legally married in a church without involving the state. The Church simply serves as an additional layer to the state process, if we so choose it to be. It is not required, nor is it the regulating body.

In fact, the truth is the reverse of your argument altogether. Separation of church and state actually would be the state handling these affairs without influence from religion. On that level, as a civil contract, the laws against discrimination are not only crystal clear - they are Constitutionally protected.

~Heff




posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
i like turtles
but theyre always going in their damn shell



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by benrl
 


Marriage is a civil contract - one that has its earliest known roots in Sumer, predating any possible incarnation of a western "church" ( including Judaism ) by as much as 3,500 years - and even in Sumer it was considered a civil contract.

That carries through to today.

I have twice been legally married without having any church involvement whatsoever. The state licenses the marriage, and the courts handle the legalities of the contract. The Church does not have the power to do this. I cannot be legally married in a church without involving the state. The Church simply serves as an additional layer to the state process, if we so choose it to be. It is not required, nor is it the regulating body.

In fact, the truth is the reverse of your argument altogether. Separation of church and state actually would be the state handling these affairs without influence from religion. On that level, as a civil contract, the laws against discrimination are not only crystal clear - they are Constitutionally protected.

~Heff


It could be argued that my stance still holds being with Americans puritanical background (as an example some of the societies you mentioned allowed Polygamy where as America does not), it is clear in America that Religion has come into play in what should be a civil contract.

It really seems we are discussing semantics here.

So than you are fine with the State dictating to whom you can and can't be married to, regardless of religious influence.

Which mean societal qualms would still be regulated, much as racial prohibitions pre civil rights era and such?



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl

So than you are fine with the State dictating to whom you can and can't be married to, regardless of religious influence.

Which mean societal qualms would still be regulated, much as racial prohibitions pre civil rights era and such?


I may be missing the point, but if you're asking if I'd rather have the state or church making law for me, then hands down the answer is state. As screwed up as the state is, I at least have some influence upon it and it is reigned in by law as to how it can and cannot effect me. The church? Not a stellar track record with the exercise of power nor with consistent application of its own rules.

As for civil rights? It took the intervention of state to settle every civil rights issue thus far. We tend to see this issue from only one aspect, in the modern world. That is to say we tend to equate "civil rights" with the plight of African Americans. In reality many others have been historically marginalized. Women, various religious groups, the Irish, and emphatically the Native Americans and the Chinese. All of these groups, and even others, were abused and given proxy second class citizens status because the state failed to intervene on their behalf. Once the state did, then their inherent rights as human beings were once again forcibly upheld.

Why is it gays now? IMO it's because they are a target of opportunity for the same sorts of people who held back the above groups. Why? Because it can be argued that being gay is a choice. That is why this one issue is so muddied. That notion that it's a simple sexual deviance and is no more a choice than any other deviance - therefore not to be civilly protected.

To those folks I say this: I am heterosexual. I was born this way. Nobody coerced me into being who I am. Nobody influenced or manipulated me into it. I've liked girls since before I had the first inkling of what sex even was. I am attracted to females. There is not a person alive, nor any force in this world, that could change that fact. Being heterosexual is who I am - it is not a choice.

So... who am I to say that gay people are any less aware of themselves than I am? Who would I be to tell them otherwise?

~Heff
edit on 10/17/12 by Hefficide because: elaboration



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Someone is looking for attention today and someone was successful. wp sir.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
I oppose gay marriage.

But if I had a dollar for everyone that told me I was a homophobic bigot I would be rich.

I oppose socialism and communism.

But if I had a dollar for every time I was called a religious fundamentalist neoconservative I would be a millionaire.

I oppose the Occupy movement.

But if I had a dollar for every time I was told that I hated freedom and I am an ignorant sheeple I would be a billionaire.

I oppose the policies of Barack Obama.

But, if I had a dollar for every time I've been called a racist I would have enough money to pay off the national debt.

When in reality. I would rather fight, take a bullet and die for your right to say so. Because in reality, if I have to continue to put up with this type of treatment, then life is probably not worth living anyways.


I can't say I agree with everything you profess, but I will encourage and fight for your right to express and say it!



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Suicide is at an all time high in our lands thanks to those who work tirelessly to instill conflicting values into hearts which are inscribed with our Creator's commands.


This isn't happening at all.

If you're American, I've made this graph for you: Graph

You can make other charts, and there are other sources for the information if you're not American. Some countries don't keep good stats, but suicide isn't going up at any alarming rate.

I would address the normal equates to bigotry thing, but this isn't the place for it.


Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Pinke
 

I wouldn't find it hard to believe that many of the posters on this site, use the same talking points and are working for the same agenda.


I think persons naturally read the same online rhetoric at times. I don't think people are working together, I just think they have similar interests or are informed similar ways.

It would be nice if people familiarized themselves with common arguments and debated from that knowledge, but it's a web forum not a university I guess!

The reason it sucks is it allows people to prop each other constantly in a self repeating cycle and, at times, reinforce incorrect beliefs or facts like booster injections. It's not about learning or understanding; it becomes about 'winning' and 'us vs. them.

Examples, a lot of Americans likely believe they have to hire a transsexual or can be sued for discriminating against a man in a dress. Or as above ... a great many people believe the suicide and violence rates of the USA and UK etc are on a constant rise over the decades ... Or the very common one, the belief of sole persecution.

Religious people do it. Atheists do it. Gay people do it. White heterosexuals love doing it. We're allegedly all the victim and it makes things easier to believe if we have an 'enemy'. The other side is always harsher and meaner, we're always smaller, and they're always making everything worse.

Example is you thanking the person above you. They share your beliefs so 'normal = bigotry' and the rest of the statement is easy to accept. Fact of the matter is it isn't just Christians being persecuted and killed it is a great many people and none of us should put up with it. I don't believe Hitler's strategy would work on the same scale any more simply because the internet prevents it. As a group we can deconstruct disinfo faster than ever before, and we're learning. We still fall for it but we're quicker than ever.

I'm not a 'normal' person in the context of the posts above. I'm one of those monkey animal persons I guess, and I'm offering you a booster shot, too. Am asking you to not embrace the negativity of being a victim of people's disagreement or persecution etc, and not to retreat to the safe haven of people who agree with your own beliefs and rhetoric.

There are people on the other side of the fence who are maybe a little bitter (hope you don't mind me saying) just like you in exactly the same way. Be the change you wanna be and talk to the folks who disagree with you kinda like we are now? Learn what makes them tick? Make a friend even? Ask them questions. I think I know how you feel cos I've kinda been there and understand a bit.

I learn a lot from my conservative and religious friends even if it's just understanding where they're coming from. Maybe you can let go of that frustration and learn a little from us monkey person types, too? We're not all bad, and you have to admit we have some pretty amazing hair cuts.


This post right ^^^^ here.
Our evolution ( socially, culturally, etc) will require THIS type of person. How few there are. The most hardcore right wing xtian to the most liberal patchouli smelling liberal would do well to read this and chew on it.. and all in between. I am not that type of person.. but know brilliance when I see it. Even at my age this is what I aspire to be.




Pinke, my dear, you did not receive enough stars to really equal the wisdom of this post... so I had to QFT and let you know. Maybe someone will actually read it.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I simply cannot agree any stronger with this statement, if I could star it more than once I would do so



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I think we are arguing the same point sort of.

Separation of church and state=Good.

Its none of the states business or purview what consenting adults do period.

IN a society dedicated to personal liberty and the pursuit of ones happiness its best for the state to stay out of issues such as this.

It is the religious connotations involved with marriage that gets the fundamentalist and religious right up and arms, in a free society religion needs to understand their views are not the only views.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
There are also some of us run of the mill heteros that dont understand the issue mainly because we would "mate for life" with our partner and not necessarily have to be married. I resent the government being so interested in my marital status. Why in the world would homos want the intrusion? It has no reflection on me... of WHO I am. The husband and I lived together for a very *long* time.. he nagged me and we got married. Mainly for medical coverage for kids. To be honest, we have spoken about it and feel as if we were cooerced to get married just to have the normal eery day benefit of married couples.. many who have been divorced and remarried a time or 2 in the amt of time my husband and I have been together! LOL! Among our friends and family the subject has come up.. I say what I think and our homo friends AT FIRST think Im pulling the whole definition of marriage tired old argument.
The thing is.. the only thing you need marriage for is the real life type of garbage : taxes, property, medical, end of life, etc. Its makes you no more legitimate or accepted in reality.. with normal people anyway, if we like or love you.. we like or love you for who you are and not the piece of paper you might have.

I sincerely dont think the term "marriage" or being able to say " we are legally married" will supply homo couples with any more legitimacy than if they didnt use the word and legally had a union to get the same benefits. Not in this time period of our history anyway. They will be hated regardless of marital status for simply loving who they love or being attracted to who they are attracted to...... and we call ourselves a civilized tolerant society.

What a few folks I personally as in real life know have done is do the whole name change and set up the contract part of a "marriage" with a private atty.. helps that one in our circle of friends is an atty of course. They just dont have a marriage certificate nor a church ceremony, though they DO have a certificate and we DID throw them a bash of all bashes.

If you dont "believe" in "gay marriage" ( absurd term) then dont, but it makes no sense to deny folks the right to love whom they want and the rights of a union of 2 people. You truly have NO right to discriminate against someone for this. For me.... I just dont base my friendships on someones sexual identity or what consenting adult they want to spend time with. Its just NOT a question that Id ask someone upon meeting them :" okay.. what do you screw.. male or female? I want to know because that will determine if you are worthy of my friendship"

edit on 17-10-2012 by Advantage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
I oppose gay marriage.

But if I had a dollar for everyone that told me I was a homophobic bigot I would be rich.

I oppose socialism and communism.

But if I had a dollar for every time I was called a religious fundamentalist neoconservative I would be a millionaire.

I oppose the Occupy movement.

But if I had a dollar for every time I was told that I hated freedom and I am an ignorant sheeple I would be a billionaire.

I oppose the policies of Barack Obama.

But, if I had a dollar for every time I've been called a racist I would have enough money to pay off the national debt.

When in reality. I would rather fight, take a bullet and die for your right to say so. Because in reality, if I have to continue to put up with this type of treatment, then life is probably not worth living anyways.


In my own experience...

If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, 99% of the time, it's a duck.

There is a big difference in "name calling" and "stating facts". Are you absolutely sure it's the former and not the latter with the way you tend to present things?



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   


Better to be attacked for your beliefs, than slinking into the dark and hiding like a scared animal. You need to be steadfast and you don't have to provoke conflict. You can quietly hold your beliefs and defend them in a civilized way, when they are challenged. Fear destroys everything good and noble; control your fear. The universe always rewards courage. Respect your adversaries and everyone but start by respecting yourself. This requires admission of who you really are and of course, it is a mix of strengths and weaknesses. Don't bluff, be real and do enough homework to be able to intelligently defend your position. No profanity, no put downs of your adversary's character and no lying. If you believe it then use you intellect to defend it. This is the stuff of growing up and getting straight.
reply to post by rollsthepaul
 


Good advice. Thank you!



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by davjan4
 


Who is persecuting you? Who is denying your fundamental right to worship as you see fit?

Why do so many Christians feel as though they are being persecuted when they are prevented from imposing their moral convictions upon non-believers?

Isn't it more accurate to say that non-believers are being persecuted by Christians imposing their moral standards upon them? Christians who would deny certain segemnts of the population fundamental Constitutional rights based upon their own beliefs are the ones commiting the persecution.

Again, no one is saying that gay people should be allowed to marry in a Church. No one is saying that Church doctrine needs to change to accomadate the changing attitudes in the US regarding same sex civil unions. No one is persecuting you.....


No more "Christmas vacation" for schools, it's "winter break". That's one example.

Google "Christians persecuted in America". I'd list links to dozens and dozens of articles, but anyone who wants to read them can Google them. There's even a website devoted to that subject.

To believe that there isn't any persecution of Christians in this country hasn't looked around. It's naive to think it's not going on.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


I grew up with the punk rock culture. I was indeed a punk rocker myself.

your thoughts and intuitions ring clear as a bell for me, there is no further need to explain. Thank you for putting your thoughts so clearly that it is easy for a person for me to understand.

I applaud you..



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 





Just curious -- what is your feeling on divorce? Specifically, heterosexual divorce? Do you think it should be illegal? Nothing breaks apart a family more than divorce, no? Do you believe that once a couple marries, they should never be allowed to divorce/split up, no matter the reason (especially if there's children)?



I have thoughts on divorce, but they are irrelevant. Its what happens after divorce that worries me.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 





Please clarify. Do you oppose same sex civil unions as well? If so, how do you justify denying constitutional rights (the right to pursue happiness and civil rights) to a particular segment of the population based upon your own set of moral values.


No, I do not oppose same sex civil unions.




As do the majority of Americans regardless of political party affiliation. Do you also oppose Fascism as well?


Yes




What in your opinion does the Occupy Movement stand for?


Socialism and communism




Specifically, which policies do you oppose? Domestic? Foreign? Economic? Civil? Did you oppose ending the war in Iraq? Did you oppose the aggressive pursuit of Osama Bin Laden and his execution?


Obamacare. Stealig from people.

"Foreign?"
Soft on foreign policy, He turns his back on those who have built strong foundations that worked. If you havent noticed the middle east is in turmoil, largely to his turning his back and double standards.

"Civil?"

He has created a class and race war.

"Econimic"

He discourages capitalism and free trade. He has also broken the backs of the middle class. They are not stronger because of his policies, but weaker.


"Civil"

He is an instigator. We are now on the brink of civil war thanks to him.




Do you oppose these policies as well?

~ Building the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it.
~ Marshalling a global effort to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
~ Rebuild and construct the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges and confront common threats, including global warming.
~ Investing in our common humanity through foreign aid and supporting the "pillars of a sustainable democracy – a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force."



I dont have answers for these, but the police swear an oath to the constitution. there is no police force required to counter the rights of individual thought and freedoms.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 





You oppose gay marriage but do you consider the many other Americans who are in favor of it because they are gay or know someone who is and thinks they have a right to be happy?


No




Do you think your opinion should reign supreme or do you think since there IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION out there we should maybe explore options or compromise?


No and then yes



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 





This is the tread where hyperbole is going to be an issue?


Thats the next big issue.




posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





I can't say I agree with everything you profess, but I will encourage and fight for your right to express and say it!




I love you beezer you wascily wabbit you.
edit on 17-10-2012 by thehoneycomb because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
The government has no business telling who can get married and have federal benefits or bring someone over from another country to live here as their partner. This is religious elitism and treating your fellow citizens unequally who work, pay taxes, have dreams and just happen to be in love with someone of their sex is wrong. I don't think anyone has the right to make a pastor or priest perform a marriage ceremony, but if you don't believe God sanctions it, then don't do it. But, don't deny fellow citizens the same benefits just because you find it horrible. My same bible says not to commit adultery and to stone such who do, but it's just amazing no one is out to stone adulterers. How about gluttony? How about laziness ? All those are deadly sins, but you don't see people marching for the right to be a foodie, slob, etc and others preaching about it.

Get over the homosexual issue. The government needs to stop running our lives. If you are so against same sex marriage then the only fair thing to do is take away every government benefit that married people get. Take away credit score benefits on joint credit apps. Let's see how fast people shut up then because their god is money and not truth.
edit on 17-10-2012 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join