Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

This May Be A Very Important Day For Gay Rights

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by beezzer
 


When the pedophiles demand the right to marry 11 year olds what then? This is a slippery slope. This is just another issue that America does not need. It will not end when they get the right to marry. It is part of the destruction of the church. It is the further eroding of morals in society.


From my standpoint, my church won't be harmed because it is built on the foundations of my faith.

From a societal standpoint, if allowing marriage still doesn't shut up the protests for rights, then it'll all be on them. They will then expose themselves as not looking for equal rights but special privileges.

As for pedophiles, they come in all stripes. They are not exclusive to the gay community and should be punished to the full extent of the law.




posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


It's interesting to point out that Christian groups opposed to gay marriage have been labeled as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center yet they ignore other faiths (Muslim for example) who are also opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage. We have a dire problem in this country and the gay marriage debate is only a symptom. Secularization of the nation and the slamming of traditional values. I don't like it and I am troubled to think of what my daughters may face in the future. The laser beam is on Christianity as a whole.
edit on 26-3-2013 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


My faith, though, is not damaged. My faith is internal. (And Eternal). You're right about the hypocricy apparent today.

The Christian religions are assaulted daily while other religions get a pass.

But if we provide true equality to all, then it would weaken (NOT the Christian church) but other religions that have been encroaching their own values into our society.

You can tear down buildings. Run rampant with sex and vulgarities open in the streets. But my faith isn't based on outside influences. I'll still be Catholic and I will still respect others rights to believe differently.
edit on 26-3-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by beezzer
 


When the pedophiles demand the right to marry 11 year olds what then? This is a slippery slope. This is just another issue that America does not need. It will not end when they get the right to marry. It is part of the destruction of the church. It is the further eroding of morals in society.


What is there about CONSENTING ADULTS that you don't understand?



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I'm going to break ranks with some of my conservative bretheren.

A marriage between a man and a woman is NOT diminished by a marriage between a man and a man or woman and a woman.

The strength of a union is not dependent on outside factors.

Also, if a majority of people voted FOR slavery, it would not make it okay. So just because Prop 8 passed, does not legitimize the inhibition of gay marriage.

Just my humble opinion.


Slavery and same sex marriage are hardly comparable. Slavery is unconstitutional, whereas there is no mention of marriage, traditional or same sex, in the Constitution.... therefore the issue defaults to the 10th amendment and the individual states to oversee. California voters voted in a legal election against gay marriage... that should be the end of the story. If SCOTUS wants to have a say in this issue, then the Constitution needs to be amended to reflect the governments role in defining marriage first, although they shouldn't have one to begin with.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Slavery and same sex marriage are hardly comparable. Slavery is unconstitutional, whereas there is no mention of marriage, traditional or same sex, in the Constitution.... therefore the issue defaults to the 10th amendment and the individual states to oversee. California voters voted in a legal election against gay marriage... that should be the end of the story. If SCOTUS wants to have a say in this issue, then the Constitution needs to be amended to reflect the governments role in defining marriage first, although they shouldn't have one to begin with.


The SCOTUS is hearing this case as it pertains to the 14th Amendment:


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by beezzer
I'm going to break ranks with some of my conservative bretheren.

A marriage between a man and a woman is NOT diminished by a marriage between a man and a man or woman and a woman.

The strength of a union is not dependent on outside factors.

Also, if a majority of people voted FOR slavery, it would not make it okay. So just because Prop 8 passed, does not legitimize the inhibition of gay marriage.

Just my humble opinion.


Slavery and same sex marriage are hardly comparable. Slavery is unconstitutional, whereas there is no mention of marriage, traditional or same sex, in the Constitution.... therefore the issue defaults to the 10th amendment and the individual states to oversee. California voters voted in a legal election against gay marriage... that should be the end of the story. If SCOTUS wants to have a say in this issue, then the Constitution needs to be amended to reflect the governments role in defining marriage first, although they shouldn't have one to begin with.


I could easily see the SCOTUS ruling initiating an amendment regarding not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. That would fall under banning states from refusing to give a marriage license to someone based on their sexual orientation.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
IMO....'gay rights' is a slap in the face to the Civil Rights Movement.
Label me what you will, it still doesn't change the fact that God made "male and female" FOR A REASON!



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


There is definately an attack against religion and its currently focused on Christianity.
Who heard about that professor, giving students an assignment to stomp on a piece of paper
with the word Jesus on it?
One Mormon boy who refused to participate was suspended.
They would not dare attempt that assignment with a picture of Mohammed.. know why? Because theyre scared to, they are scared of lawsuits and they are scared crazy that some cleric would issue a fatwa or call for jihad against the US (again) the school and the professor.
As for Judaism, well, we all know why thats off limits, which makes Christianity the best choice for a religion to attack.
edit on 26-3-2013 by TriForce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SamaraTen
 


Vermon..



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by xedocodex
 


The bible states that marriage is between man and woman. There are 1 billion Catholics alone. What DOESN"T it have to do with the bible?


Our laws should not be based on any religion.

Or do you think we should start looking to the Koran for guidance as well?



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


No church should be compelled to marry anyone.

But, as I'm sure you know, marriage can be had outside of church -- at the courthouse / justice of the peace.

Anyway -- it's a silly argument. Religious laws have no place in a secular society of many faiths (or none at all).



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TriForce
reply to post by supertrot
 


Yea and a possible slap in the face for democracy, since this case is based on challenging the majority of people that voted for Proposition 8 in California.
edit on 26-3-2013 by TriForce because: (no reason given)


What's right is not always popular, what's popular is not always right.

They would have voted to keep slaves too if they had the chance.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
A church is NOT required to perform a ceremony for anyone they don't want to perform a ceremony for. It is the choice of the church to say yes or no and there is absolutely, positively NOTHING that anyone can do to force them.

The ceremony is NOT the marriage. The marriage is done at the courthouse regardless of where the ceremony is held with the filing of the certificate signed by an official who is licensed to sign it saying the two are married. Presently, pastors are empowered to sign those certificates. So are many other officials. Those who elect to have a wedding ceremony at a church have theirs signed by the presiding clergy. If they have it done at the courthouse, they have it signed by the official there.

No church, anywhere, is REQUIRED to conduct either same sex or opposite sex marriages if they say "no, we won't do the ceremony". There is no recourse, there is no way to force them to. It is OPTIONAL and has to be agreed to by the couple and by the clergy who would perform it. If he/she says no, it doesn't happen there and they can either find another place for the ceremony or have it at the courthouse.

It really is as plain and simple as that. It doesn't infringe on religion in any way, shape or form. They can not and will not be forced to do anything they don't want to do.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
It is sad that some people think that their values/beliefs depend on the government suppressing the rights of others.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
Our laws should not be based on any religion.


Or some snotty nosed minority group who believe they should have special rights that no-one else does because they chose to be different..


Or do you think we should start looking to the Koran for guidance as well?


Hey, thats a great idea for an opposition movement



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by n00bUK
 


Because it destroys the sanctity of marriage for those who believe in it. All for 4% of the population. It will also creates yet another great divide in America just like Roe vs Wade did. We don't need more division. The people have voted on it and said no. Go after Civil Unions. Why destroy the sanctity of marriage when you can get the same result with civil unions? Why must "marriage" enter into the equation when they obviously don't believe in God/Bible anyway? This is just more destruction heaped onto society for no reason.


I think you're mistaken. If they legalize gay marriage, it won't require you to get a divorce and marry a gay person. That's about the ONLY way it could destroy the sanctity of your marriage and that's not what they're proposing at all.

...ohhhhhh I get it, you heard "propose" and you thought they were asking you to marry them and you had to say yes....

no, that's not what they're doing



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
What i don't understand is why is it even considered an attack? Maybe if these religious zealots didn't open their mouths in the first place protesting that "gays" should not have the same equal rights as the "straights" they wouldn't feel the back-lash from a forward thinking society.


Hate to break it to you "Christians" but marriage was here long before the bible existed and it will be here long after your religion dies.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
Rewriting the bible will divide the country. All for less than 4% of the population.


Rewriting the bible, done by the evangelical non-denominational poor excuses for churches, is exactly what has divided the country and is trying to destroy Christianity completely with their mistranslations and rewording in their "easy to read for dummies" version that changes concepts completely to fit their stance.

Regardless of what people WANT to believe, the Catholic Church WAS the first Christian Church, the Protestants broke away from them but kept the same basis they started with and makes up the rest of Christianity. Don't know what those new little churches are, but they sure aren't Christians.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GR1ill3d
What i don't understand is why is it even considered an attack? Maybe if these religious zealots didn't open their mouths in the first place protesting that "gays" should not have the same equal rights as the "straights" they wouldn't feel the back-lash from a forward thinking society.


Hate to break it to you "Christians" but marriage was here long before the bible existed and it will be here long after your religion dies.


Religion isn't going anywhere... It will outlast any homosexual revolution and their cronies.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join