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.

 

Simple question re: homosexuality

page: 21
41
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

There is no actual legal, or logical explanation to prevent homosexuals from marrying each other.

Not one person has provided an argument that I can't refute in 10 thousand characters or less.

~Tenth


It is very simple. Marriage has always been union between opposite sexes. That is what is meant by the word marriage. Legally, the term has historical precedence, and under common law, the practice of the land is the law.

There is nothing to prevent two men from forming a union. There are corporate partnerships, for example. Two men could easily form a corporate partnership, and put into the legal founding documents "any kind" of rules they want to abide by, as the laws of their union. For example, their corporate partnership could allow one of them to have outside partners, 3 times a year, or to take a 6 month vacation from the requirements of fulfilling their conjugal duties, etc..They can put all sorts of clauses, that become legally binding, into their corporate partnership. They can decide how to share the income, each partner makes, what portion of the income should be invested for the common good of the union, etc...the opportunities are endless. Be as creative as you like.

There's no need for the civil contract of marriage, if two people really want to be "legally bound" to each other by contract and the law.




posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by seabag
 



The 5% of this country who will benefit from DOMA being overturned will have no absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever just as they don’t know.


Yet you would choose to deny those people those benefits based on a personal, and religious understanding of a 3000 year old text?

Gotcha!

~Tenth


That's what i have been saying, it's such an old text that is so irrelevant to life, it's unbelievable people take it seriously. Then apply those words to real life to judge and persecute other's around them.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Yet you would choose to deny those people those benefits based on a personal, and religious understanding of a 3000 year old text?

Gotcha!


I'm not denying anyone anything. I'd just prefer it be called a civil union. I've maintained that position from the beginning....I guess you missed it.

If they just called it a civil union then everyone would be happy.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SQUEALER
 


I agree with you, in that semantics is not a good enough reason to deny someone their rights.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Yet you would choose to deny those people those benefits based on a personal, and religious understanding of a 3000 year old text?

Gotcha!


I'm not denying anyone anything. I'd just prefer it be called a civil union. I've maintained that position from the beginning....I guess you missed it.

If they just called it a civil union then everyone would be happy.




Oh I keep forgetting we always have this same conversation, and then you say that, and I say:

Well I agree entirely, calling it marriage is stupid, not calling it marriage to me is also stupid, but whatever works.

~Tenth



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
HUH you people are still arguing on behalf of a fairy tale.


And YOU people are still lingering on threads just to troll.

Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you have to hate-monger on people who do.

Yet Christians are condemned for their disagreements with gays.

I guess discrimination is okay if done by Atheists, right?

Disgusting.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Oh I keep forgetting we always have this same conversation, and then you say that, and I say:

Well I agree entirely, calling it marriage is stupid, not calling it marriage to me is also stupid, but whatever works.


Hey, the OP began this thread asking what the hang up was and I explained it on page one.

As far as I’m concerned, gays can get married, adopt kids, get artificially inseminated and then abort the kid because the eye color wasn’t right....whatever they want. That’s not my burden to carry, it’s theirs.


You all just keep high-fiving and patting eachother on the back. Enjoy whatever flavor of depravity you'd like! I'm out!!!



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
HUH you people are still arguing on behalf of a fairy tale.


And YOU people are still lingering on threads just to troll.

Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you have to hate-monger on people who do.

Yet Christians are condemned for their disagreements with gays.

I guess discrimination is okay if done by Atheists, right?

Disgusting.


Wait wait wait, please quote me saying "I hate people who believe in god", never did I say that.

I do believe in GOD, which is this planet. Giving me direct contact to the creator.

Discrimination is never okay no matter who it is done by, again i have not discriminated against anyone here, if you believe I did, then quote me.

Second of all, Christianity is based on a fairy tale, can someone please answer me why we don't recognise that as insanity?



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


The taste of freedom is always sweet regardless of the flavor, yes?



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by seabag
 



The 5% of this country who will benefit from DOMA being overturned will have no absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever just as they don’t know.


Yet you would choose to deny those people those benefits based on a personal, and religious understanding of a 3000 year old text?

Gotcha!

~Tenth


That's what i have been saying, it's such an old text that is so irrelevant to life, it's unbelievable people take it seriously. Then apply those words to real life to judge and persecute other's around them.


Totally true. And what is going to happen when the gays start marrying? More stability in society and less hatred, hopefully.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
I do believe in GOD, which is this planet. Giving me direct contact to the creator.

Second of all, Christianity is based on a fairy tale, can someone please answer me why we don't recognise that as insanity?



Okay, it is official. We are all evenly screwed here.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Casualboy100
I Don't get why rights are being questioned because of church. IS this the 1800s?


Rights aren't being questioned. Nobody is denying anyone the right to form a union.

People are crying because they want EXACTLY the same word (marriage) as straight people. When did a religious ceremony become a right?


I think this is exactly what confuses a lot of people (on both sides of the argument) right here.

The concept of a marriage rite i.e reliigious, or civil ceremony to celebrate, witness and ratify the marriage

and the rights that come with the legal recognition of said marriage.

What gay people want is the rights that come with the lgeal recognition.

The rite part is pure fluff and there is plenty of tradition surrounding them, I have no issue with straight people trying to protect these rites. It is no different to people being mad that nativity scenes have being banned at Christmas in malls etc these days - something that always annoys me personally.

Would I personally care if you gave it another name? Well other countries have done just that. It is often called civil union. Some of those countries have progressed and are now debating and some have even made the full step to calling civil union marriage. But this is something that needs to be done in baby steps.

The general population needs to know and have it demonstrated to them that the world is not going to end by allowing gay people to have a recognised partnership. A lot of them are not against the idea, but are not yet ready to allow the use of the word marriage

So yes, if civil union is more palatable, I'll take that as long as it gives me the same legal rights as marriage. I'll take my rights and you can keep your rites intact.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
the issue i have is i stand against it on some grounds but not all, yes your right it doesnt effect you immediately so why should you care? the only aspect i have against it is the government (law) forcing religion groups to recognise these marriages. sorry i wont let the laws of impede on religion, if we can do that then i want your donation hat taxed, if we can impede our laws onto the church why cant we tax indians? seperation of church and state, the minute you pushed for a law to make your "religous belief" fit in to the religion you lost. if you want my backing you need to prove your holy book accepts these views and if you havent read more than a excerpt here or there shut your hole you dont know what youre talking about, then if and when you get that set the "trial" is then with your church and its followers not a judge not a police officer. stop trying to make everyone whos against gay marriage seem like its homofobia or just prejudice, like throwing the race card just because your black or chinese, its one thing if it is racism but when its just a desperate im losing he must be racist you define the reasoning behind that racism. just my standing, laws and churches dont go together, make your own church write your own bible i dont care but stop thinking the romans need to act like you when in rome.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by beezzer
 



I can't believe I'm one of the few conservatives on this site who just don't care about sexual orientation!


Ummmm….you're not. Almost nobody cares what two adults do! However, many believe in the Defense of Marriage Act and support the sanctity of the institution of marriage. This isn’t a conservative thing, friend. The Defense of Marriage Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.


The bill moved through Congress on a legislative fast track and met with overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled Congress, passing by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate and a vote of 342–67 in the House
en.wikipedia.org...



A while back, I wrote a little piece where if Doris and Betty wanted a Chevy but called it a Cadillac, it was their right to do so, because whatever they called it, had no impact on the value of my car.

My faith in God is not based on the values that others put on religion. Me and God, we have a pretty good understanding. We both understand that people are fallable and make mistakes. (He's cool that way)

DOMA was a stop-gap measure that was doomed to failure, kind of like Obamacare.

Lastly, it's all good.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
I do believe in GOD, which is this planet. Giving me direct contact to the creator.

Second of all, Christianity is based on a fairy tale, can someone please answer me why we don't recognise that as insanity?



Okay, it is official. We are all evenly screwed here.


LOL why you say that?



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bryono
 


Where the heck are you getting this assertion from? Source, please.

All it is doing is affording the same FEDERAL provisions that are normally given to married persons in the eyes of the law - something that the current civil union laws are severely lacking.

Show me one place that says the Feds will force churches to marry gays, please.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
As far as I’m concerned, gays can get married, adopt kids, get artificially inseminated and then abort the kid because the eye color wasn’t right....whatever they want. That’s not my burden to carry, it’s theirs.


As far as I'm concerned you just summed up your hateful bigotry quite nicely.

Wow stereotype much?

You seem to have this mindset that homosexuality is deviant behavior, and anyone who practices it must be deviant.

What a load of uninformed bigoted bollox.


On Jan. 6, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum told a New Hampshire audience that children are better off with a father in prison than being raised in a home with lesbian parents and no father at all. And last Monday (Jan. 9), Pope Benedict called gay marriage a threat "to the future of humanity itself," citing the need for children to have heterosexual homes.

But research on families headed by gays and lesbians doesn't back up these dire assertions. In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't...


www.huffingtonpost.com...




The new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents show more empathy for social diversity, are less confined by gender stereotypes, and are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves. Writing in recent issue of the American Sociological Review, the authors say that the emotional health of the two sets of children is essentially the same...



A new study suggests children of gay parents are not only psychologically healthy, but often appear to exhibit better social and academic adjustment and a significantly lower incidence of social problems than their peers.


Gay Parents Have Well-Adjusted Kids


Research suggests that they turn out about the same, no better, no worse and no more likely to be gay than other kids


What happens to kids raised by gay parents?



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by seabag
 



The 5% of this country who will benefit from DOMA being overturned will have no absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever just as they don’t know.


Yet you would choose to deny those people those benefits based on a personal, and religious understanding of a 3000 year old text?

Gotcha!




All things considered Tenth, Roe v Wade provided society with a way to dispose of their unwanted unborn under the law, and that desire is due to selfishness, regardless if religion or secular humanism was involved. Roe v Wade affects probably far more unborn babies than DOMA affects gay people. Non or Oui?
But God's human children have free will.
edit on 28-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I don’t have a problem with gay people, but I DO have a problem with gay people making out, kissing, etc., in public. That stuff needs to stay in the closet and/or bedroom. I use to do stuff like that when I was a teenager, but then I realized there was a time and place for it! When I was a kid, I thought it was COOL to do so! I don’t care if you’re trying to make a point, but doing crap like that in public is childish and immature. Grow-up!



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



Originally posted by seabag
If they just called it a civil union then everyone would be happy.


No, they wouldn't.

If YOU want to call religious marriage something different, then YOU call it something different. Then everyone would be happy.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join