Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gay Marriage is Wrong and I am not a Homophobe

page: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hecate666
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Reply to the OP:

Title:

"Interracial marriage is wrong and I am not a racist". /sarcasm

No need to say anymore to this.


apples and oranges.

What if I said "marriage between man and monkey is wrong and I am not a racist" even though Darwin says we evolved from the same common ancestor as apes.




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
I didn't fully understand the situation before reading your post.

You are absolutely correct, and I'm really glad you posted.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Oi do not bring my parents into this



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrincessTofu
It sort of seems that it would only be fair that if gay couples attend these churches and have been putting their hard-earned money into that collection plate every Sunday, they should have every benefit that the church offers to everyone else that attends.

You're good enough to give us your money but otherwise you have to stand in the corner with the lepers. Doesn't seem quite right to me.



Soooo you are saying that money can buy you admittance to the Church regardless of whether you hold to the tenets?
Did you know that when you do not uphold the law in matters of civics, the cops don't care if you didn't know you were breaking the law?
But money buys everything now doesn't it, including the Presidency.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Originally posted by GhostyMew
Making same sex marriage legal is not giving the LGBT community power over straight people. It's giving equal power. Well, near equal power.

Never said anything about LGBT having power of heterosexual people, I am talking about the power that government is using to force religious institutions to change their ways.

Why should the rights of homosexuals be above the rights of religious people and institutions?


it is NOT about forcing religous institutions to change their ways, it's about having religous institutions forcing others to change theirs. if i forced you to live by the writings of santa claus, would you do it?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


heh heh


Took me a minute to get it.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
The government could have settled this years ago.

Ban all new marriages.
Existing marriages are null and void.

Divorce rate plummets to zero.

That was easy.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 





it is NOT about forcing religous institutions to change their ways, it's about having religous institutions forcing others to change theirs. if i forced you to live by the writings of santa claus, would you do it?


Obama and Obamacare is forcing Catholic institutions to go against their beliefs and provide contraception. That is the State imposing on religion. Now what was that about separation of Church and State? When POTUS can walk into a Catholic University and make them cover all the statues because they bother him, it is imposing State on religion. It would have been better for him just to say he can't come and talk with all those statues he is so uncomfortable with. Would you have thought it was ok if he went into a shrine to Laksmi and made them cover their statues? Or would you complain that he is racist and not politically correct?

I would also mention that the Church has had the same teaching on same-sex marriage for 2000 years, so who is demanding the changes?
edit on 14-12-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrincessTofu
It sort of seems that it would only be fair that if gay couples attend these churches and have been putting their hard-earned money into that collection plate every Sunday, they should have every benefit that the church offers to everyone else that attends. You're good enough to give us your money but otherwise you have to stand in the corner with the lepers. Doesn't seem quite right to me.
Yes, money talks. Once again, I will say that if the Church considers itself above societal dictates, then it can start paying taxes like the rest of us. Put up or shut up. Or like they used to say about the Pope and contraception, "You no play'a da game, you no make'a da rules"

There is a reason that organised religion is falling into irrelevance in the modern world.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Because gay Jesus said so ?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Call it Gayrriage and the problem is solved.
Im serious. This would fix it. Heteros get married Homos get Gayrried.....simple.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ToneDeaf
 


There are numerous studies that say heterosexuals are far more likely to abuse children than homosexuals. I believe current estimates place homosexuals as committing 0-3.1% of childhood sexual abuse cases. The thing you must remember about pedophilia is that it generally isn't about sexual gratification. It's about power. The same goes for rape. This is why the belief that the victim was asking for it is so ridiculous. Here is one of those articles I was referencing.
Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by buster2010
 





You claim to have homosexual friends but you have no problem with them being screwed out of rights that you enjoy


Homosexual couples have the exact same rights as same sex couples under a civil partnerships so your point is totally mute.



Can they get married? Not a civil union but married.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 
I do not agree......people have the right to do whatever they wish as long as it's not affecting others,but on the other hand this "gay pride parade thing" and all the gay phone sex talk lines advertised on daily TV is a bit over the top,people have every right to be gay if they wish...but they do not have the right to demand respect for their personal choice to be gay...being gay is a personal life choice...it's not a right to infringe upon others for extra rights,and or special treatment.I am truly sorry to all you gay's out there but that's where i do draw a line.Just because your gay does not mean you should get fringe benefits or more power of say.If some one in honesty "like having sex with animals"should people give in an say it's ok..."he or she want's to marry that gerbil"?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Since the OP seems to have ignored my question from earlier I figure I'll ask it again. What homosexuals are looking for is the right to civil marriage. Civil marriage is different than religious marriage. A civil marriage has legal standing. A religious marriage does not. Now it is true that when one is religiously married they are also civilly married but a person can be civilly married and not religiously married. So with that said, same sex marriages in no way infringe on the rights of religious institutions. So does this mean you actually have no problem with same sex marriages? Or are you actually using the claim that they strip religious institutions of their rights as a cover for your own prejudices?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Man will not truely be free until the last brick from the last church falls on the last priest.

If Jesus came back today and saw all the things we were doing in his name he wouldn't be able to STOP throwing up.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Onewhoknowsjesus
 


Homosexuality is incomparable to bestiality. It is incomparable to pedophilia. It is incomparable to rape. Homosexuality is consensual. Bestiality, pedophilia, and rape are not consensual. It is as simple as that.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Not buying it for a minute. Why do none of these reports reverse the conclusion and suggest that those who present such a danger are desperate and will seek gratification wherever they can? Hmmmm, I wonder.

Description of Confusing Cause and Effect


Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:

A and B regularly occur together.
Therefore A is the cause of B.

This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.


Description of Questionable Cause


This fallacy has the following general form:

A and B are associated on a regular basis.
Therefore A is the cause of B.

The general idea behind this fallacy is that it is an error in reasoning to conclude that one thing causes another simply because the two are associated on a regular basis. More formally, this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because they are associated on a regular basis. The error being made is that a causal conclusion is being drawn from inadequate evidence.


False Cause


False Cause:

assuming that because two things happened, the first one caused the second one. (Sequence is not causation.) For example, "Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons." Or, "Every time my brother Bill accompanies me to Fenway Park, the Red Sox are sure to lose."

Essentially, these are arguments that the sun goes down because we've turned on the street lights.

Obviously here those who wish will arrange the sequence to serve a particular purpose.

Non Causa Pro Causa


This is the most general fallacy of reasoning to conclusions about causality. Some authors describe it as inferring that something is the cause of something else when it isn't, an interpretation encouraged by the fallacy's names. However, inferring a false causal relation is often just a mistake,


Often just a mistake, something we're all open to. When mistakes are purposefully repeated or ignorance is embraced to further a position it becomes sinister. Stop with this attempt at legitimizing dislike and just bear out the 'dirty sinner' argument that hidden behind it.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 
I fail to see the point in the last post...no religion anywhere...forces people to anything..except the Westburrow Baptist peeps...they're pretty messed up..aside from that a majority of big religions here in the USA preach freedom...well most of them



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 
it is in my opinion...they are all against nature...not god....nature...the univerese know hat im say'n









 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join