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: 31
41
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by SQUEALER
 





The whole objective behind the movement to call "gay unions" a "marriage" is to destroy the traditional concept of "marriage" by denying heterosexuals the right to conceive.
Please, I beg you, back this statement up. Please. I truly cannot wait.


Maybe the lefts fascination with abortions and gay marriage is part of the plan to “thin the herd” so to speak. This could be reverse psychology whereby the elites get the population control they’ve long sought. The beauty of this plan is not only do they get little resistance from the population but the schmucks who will be thinned are actually doing all the hard work for them!

I've changed my position! I'm now PRO gay marriage!


Or maybe the left's fascination with both is to stand up for people who have historically been repressed and under-represented in society. I like to stand up for the underdog, always have, always will.

The right cannot speak of liberty and consistently use the government to suppress the aspirations of others, this only serves to undermine what conservatism supposedly champions.

Finally, your extreme misunderstanding of left wing motives does not add to your intelligence or rhetorical ability.




posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Very simple question here. It is simple logic that gay marriage cannot and will not effect any person outside of that particular relationship. It cannot effect my marriage. It cannot effect yours.

With that in mind, I have to ask:

What is so scary about gay marriage? Fear is literally the only reason that people are against it (whether it be religious fear, social fear, etc). There is no other logical reason.

So, again, I ask: What is so scary about gay marriage?


I have not read the whole thread, but my simple answer is that accepting homosexual behavior openly is part of the demoralization of society, where homosexual sex, group sex, violence, depravity, drugs, is all accepted. The moral standards of society today are so low.

Morale can be the fuel that drives an organization forward or the fuel that feeds the fires of employee discontent, poor performance, and absenteeism (Ewton, 2007). With low morale comes a high price tag.

Without a proper foundation of morals, things can be completely destroyed and washed away.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmology

I have not read the whole thread, but my simple answer is that accepting homosexual behavior openly is part of the demoralization of society,
Hmm, we are in countless wars where innocents die daily.
Our Government Lies to Us , and introduces Laws that the Majority are against.
We have the World's Largest Prison Population, and its on the Increase.
More People are living in Poverty than ever before,and its on the Increase.

Yet your concern is, what 2 consenting adults do, in the Privacy in the bedroom?
Thats what you see as the Problem ?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
The right wing is a perfect example of George Orwells double speak, where black is white, up is down, and right-wing means freedom.

WWII obviously didn't end fascism, that mindset is still alive and well, and pulling the wool over someones eyes at a store near you, 50% off retail price.

I guess WWII was for nothing after all?


Many different characteristics are attributed to fascism by different scholars, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, anti-liberalism, and anti-communism.


psychology.wikia.com...



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by LexiconV
reply to post by SoulReaper
 


There are well over 3000 deities to chose from across the globe and hundreds of sub branches of Christianity with a variety of interpretations of the word of god... So if you think you have the ultimate justification for gay people not to use the term 'marriage' then clearly you are presenting your own confusion/delusion. Many Churches have been or now are performing 'gay marriages' as the focus is on the rights of the individuals as opposed to the bigoted ideas percolating from selectively interpreting passages from antiquated jewish scripts.
The Bible was not handed to mankind by God, nor was it dictated to scribes by God. It has nothing to do with God. The Bible was voted to be the word of God by a group of men during the 4th century. Its now the 21st century and the majority of the covenants have already hit the wall of unacceptability or are completely ignored in the modern age.
So to speak of others as having confusion/delusions is very amusing because as I see it.... you're referencing Hebrew and Roman Catholic beliefs regarding a conceptual deity from the dark ages, and that is the ultimate delusion.
If gay people are unable to utilize their selected church due to a bigoted and discriminating belief system based on covenants aimed at the moral illegitimacy of genital incompatibility, then Churches are no longer providing a service to the extended public and need to be taxed accordingly. If religious institutions were taxed I'm very sure they would have a complete turn around on masse as money talks the loudest within these pseudo religious corporate institutions. I very much doubt they would ever use genital incompatibility as an excuse again.... but you probably still would.



Your reading comprehension level leaves a lot to be desired. As i said before Gay people should be completely free to run around and call their unions whatever they want. They can't fool me, what they have done can never mimic the stipulations set forth at the beginning of humanity in which the marriage covenant is to be "Sealed" with the act of procreation.

The majority of the population has no idea what a covenant is, much less what is required to enter into one. It is a foreign concept to many, christian or not, but is essential to perceive what it means for 2 individuals to be joined as "one flesh" before God.

Of course nobody must perceive marriage in the way that I do, but I am not required to acknowledge your perception of what it means to be married either.

As I've said before, you can get 90% of the world to agree with you and legislate what ever laws you want or change the dictionary to suit your fancy... it makes no difference to me, i will never condone nor applaud your position. I am free to perceive marriage according to my beliefs and to hold that two individuals of the same gender are physically incapable of entering into the covenant of marriage as ordained by God at the beginning.

You do not have the right to force me or anyone else to acknowledge your position.

Just as it would be absurd for me to walk into an Islamic mosque and demand that they all bow down and worship Christ as lord, so is it absurd for you to think that gay people should be able to walk into a church which understands marriage in the manner that i do and demand that they perform a ceremony which is contrary to their beliefs. Your argument is insane, would you contend that any religious group is obligated to obey the whims of any individual who "chooses to utilize their place of worship"?

What if the gay couple are also satanists? Would you still contend that a church should be forced to oblige them if they wished to dedicate their ceremony under the authority of Satan? Where does it stop?

You ooze intolerance and hatred with every post.

I say live and let live, let the gay people seek out their own understandings and groups with compatible view points. Leave those such as myself alone to seek out our own understandings and to group together with those with compatible view points.

Lets all push for the government/ tax system/ legal system to be completely neutral regarding the matter, no laws pushed through defining marriage, no laws passed through legislating obligation upon religious institutions or clergy. All individuals have the right to legally and otherwise define their own relationships with whoever they want and call those relationships what ever they want. All existing special benefits afforded to any one particular group or type of union removed at the federal and state levels and everyone seen as completely equal. Complete and total neutrality from government institutions.

The only reason one would object to this is if your goal is really to oppress those with opposing view points.

Soul



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmology

I have not read the whole thread, but my simple answer is that accepting homosexual behavior openly is part of the demoralization of society, where homosexual sex, group sex, violence, depravity, drugs, is all accepted. The moral standards of society today are so low.

Morale can be the fuel that drives an organization forward or the fuel that feeds the fires of employee discontent, poor performance, and absenteeism (Ewton, 2007). With low morale comes a high price tag.

Without a proper foundation of morals, things can be completely destroyed and washed away.


It's just the law of ENTROPY.

All things in the universe move towards the state of disorder.

After the creative impulse, everything just runs downhill.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoulReaper
As i said before Gay people should be completely free to run around and call their unions whatever they want. They can't fool me, what they have done can never mimic the stipulations set forth at the beginning of humanity in which the marriage covenant is to be "Sealed" with the act of procreation.


I'd like to see where the law states a marriage has to be sealed with an act of procreation?

Sorry bud but old antiquated religious nonsense is not a valid argument against a civil union, via state contract, by two consenting adults.

You seem to fail to realise you are trying to deny someone of their freedom, does that make you feel "Christian"?

When are people going to realise that state and church should not mix, and in this case it is the church that is in the wrong? The church does not own marriage, get over it.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Idonttouchmethere
 



Or maybe the left's fascination with both is to stand up for people who have historically been repressed and under-represented in society. I like to stand up for the underdog, always have, always will.

BAHAhahahah!!


They've done such a FINE JOB of helping the black community, haven’t they?



Blacks have always been worse off under Democrats. So much of liberal legislative action to help blacks ends up hurting them and moving them backwards economically. There’s no doubt that many blacks survive the attempt to make them wards of the State.
The black family has been nearly destroyed by Democrat initiatives. There was a time in our history when the divorce and unwed mother rates were no different between blacks and whites.


“The black unemployment rate was 12.7 percent when Mr. Obama took office. While the unemployment rate in the U.S. as a whole is below 8 percent, the Labor Department reported the black jobless rate was up from 12.9 percent to 14 percent for December.
“The worst during Mr. Obama’s first term was in September 2011, with 16.7 percent unemployment for blacks — the highest since 1983, the Department of Labor reports. The black teen jobless rate hit a staggering 39.3 percent in July 2012.”
www.westernjournalism.com...





The right cannot speak of liberty and consistently use the government to suppress the aspirations of others, this only serves to undermine what conservatism supposedly champions.


There is not “right to marry” outlined in the constitution, is there? And like I’ve said many times answering the OP’s question, the hang up is the word MARRIAGE not the act itself. You guys don’t want to hear that though. You want to shove your garbage down our throats and you don’t care who it offends.

Meh!






Finally, your extreme misunderstanding of left wing motives does not add to your intelligence or rhetorical ability.

Nobody understands the left better than conservatives.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots[/iThere is no such thing as homosexual marriage. There is only same sex marriage and as invasive as our government is they cannot look in under the bedsheets to see if a couple is really homosexual or not. This openes the door to wall kinds of fraud, as if the courts don't have enough to deal with already. What homosexual/same sex marriage is, is just another government way to rip off the average citizen. They have already bankrupted the hetero population and now they are turning their eyes to the homosexuals. There are a few words I would like to address to the gay population that perhaps they haven't thought about before DIVORCE,COMMUNITY PROPERTY, THE MARRIAGE TAX. Gay people are extremely naïve about marriage in the United states so for this reason I decided to warn them about what marriage really is.
1. Marriage does not validate love, only love validates love.
2. Marriage does not guarantee community acceptance.
3. Marriage does not legitimize children anymore. Its now all about DNA.
4. Marriage does not insure fidelity.
5. Marriage comes with the option of divorce. 50% of marriages end in divorce.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
So many sad ignorant/brainwashed/bigoted people in this thread, it's good to see the nice/caring/open minded/loving people coming out on top.

Homophobes stop hating, concentrate on more important things in life like..

'Yourselves' would be a good start.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmology

Hi Cosmo

You wrote QUOTE

"... my simple answer is that accepting homosexual behavior openly is part of the demoralization of society, where homosexual sex, group sex, violence, depravity, drugs, is all accepted. The moral standards of society today are so low.

Morale [sic] can be the fuel that drives an organization forward or the fuel that feeds the fires of employee discontent, poor performance, and absenteeism (Ewton, 2007). With low morale comes a high price tag.

Without a proper foundation of morals, things can be completely destroyed and washed away."

UNQUOTE

I think you are confusing the term 'moral' (from the Latin 'mos, moris' meaning 'prevailing custom' but which has come to mean 'having to do with what any given Society considers to be proper behaviour' ) with the term MORALE defined by Webster's as 'the confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline of a person or group at any particular time'

They are not the same thing at all. I believe the word you are chasing is 'immorality'....and your silly quotation ref: morale in an office is a non-sequitur on this post.

Either way, how would societal acceptance of homosexuality (whether it be 'king' David porking Jonathan (1 Sam 20:30, or 2 Sam 1:25-26 "O Jonathan, how precious you were to me - and your love for me was full of strange wonderment - far surpassing that of any woman !") or Leonardo da Vinci & his infamous arrest for 'sogdogmia' in April of 1476 with the male prostitute Jacopo Saltarelli or the Roman Emperor Adrian and his Boy Toy Antinous, to name only a couple of examples) produce 'demoralization' among people? Or did you mean 'degeneration' ?

Think for a minute: you wouldn't have the Sistine Chapel frescoes if it weren't for Michel Angelo Buonarroti and the whole world now knows (or should know by now !) that he was gay (even though his later publishers changed all the HIM's to HER's in his Love Sonnets - shame on them !) - do you think Michaelangelo contributed to the downfall of Society? Nor would you have DaVinci's Mona Lisa or the Last Supper if it were not for Leonardo's great contributions to Western Art to say nothing of the Sciences.

If anything, 'homosexuals' throughout history (a full 9% of the general population, not counting 'bisexuals') were responsible for producing more great works of genius in the arts, literature and sciences (percentage wise) than the more common 'breeder' population, being as it were set apart from the herd.

But back to your word MORAL - which as I mentioned derives from the latin MOS, MORIS which means simply 'custom' or 'societal habit' - i.e. what is 'moral' is more a question of GEOGRAPHY than ethics - the tribe down the hill cuts their forelocks, whereas the tribe up the hill considers cutting of forelocks to be a societal taboo - the Jewish Bible is full of such local 'morals' which are nothing more than local tribal customs -

What 'compass' do you yourself use to define MORALITY (i.e. in the sense of 'proper acceptable behaviour')?

Are you using as your 'moral guide' some ancient self serving racist xenophobic sexist book you can't even read in the original?

Would you for example, consider left-handed people (a full 9% of the general population) immoral the way the clerics did in the Middle Ages, considering the left (Latin : 'sinister') hand to be evil ? I guess poor Leonardo was in for a double dose of moralism from you then, being BOTH gay AND left-handed !

Maybe you need to take a College course in History, Sociology & Anthropology so you can learn a little about human societal behavior over the centuries -

From the way you write, I suppose you must be very young...but it's never to late to broaden one's perspective on reality !



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Idonttouchmethere
 



Or maybe the left's fascination with both is to stand up for people who have historically been repressed and under-represented in society. I like to stand up for the underdog, always have, always will.

BAHAhahahah!!




They've done such a FINE JOB of helping the black community, haven’t they?



And the right was the force in the south that was trying conserve, slavery and later Jim Crow, simply
Because it threatened the social hierarchy that defined America. Last I checked, the men who still want to
Fly the confederate flag are not liberals, last I checked; the south would not be considered a liberal stronghold.

Kind of like today's debate over gay marriage


And finally, Dr. Martin Luther King championed social program and a wide array of redistribution.







There is not “right to marry” outlined in the constitution, is there? And like I’ve said many times answering the OP’s question, the hang up is the word MARRIAGE not the act itself. You guys don’t want to hear that though. You want to shove your garbage down our throats and you don’t care who it offends.


The constitution did outline slavery and institutionalized it, so I am not going to apply the social standards from centuries back, to today's world. The constitution is not an excuse to oppress people.

You don't have to get married Teabag, nobody is forcing anything on you.


Finally, your extreme misunderstanding of left wing motives does not add to your intelligence or rhetorical ability.

Nobody understands the left better than conservatives.



Of course you understand my motives better then me, such a wise assumption

edit on 29-5-2013 by Idonttouchmethere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by SoulReaper
As i said before Gay people should be completely free to run around and call their unions whatever they want. They can't fool me, what they have done can never mimic the stipulations set forth at the beginning of humanity in which the marriage covenant is to be "Sealed" with the act of procreation.


I'd like to see where the law states a marriage has to be sealed with an act of procreation?

Sorry bud but old antiquated religious nonsense is not a valid argument against a civil union, via state contract, by two consenting adults.

You seem to fail to realise you are trying to deny someone of their freedom, does that make you feel "Christian"?

When are people going to realise that state and church should not mix, and in this case it is the church that is in the wrong? The church does not own marriage, get over it.




You guys are really quite dense,

Please read my post again and point out to me where i talked about denying anybody anything?

Its called a difference of opinion, a difference of perception.

I am not required to follow social pressure like a lemming. I am free to rise above the regurgitated talking points and maintain my right to have my own perceptions while defending your right to have yours.

You seem to think that everyone must conform to your way of thinking or else they are by default "intolerant, bigoted, or hate filled".

That is unintelligent nonsense. People can disagree about terms, definitions, and life styles and still maintain civil discourse and peaceful coexistence.

The State should not be used to Force conformity upon society, that is the tactic of oppression and control, do this or else, say this or else, think this or else. It is pushing a view point using threats and is quite frankly a brutish response to those who think differently.

Quit being a brute and attempt to engage in intelligent discourse.

Of course that is a near impossible task for a large segment of society

Soul



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



What is so scary about gay marriage? Fear is literally the only reason that people are against it (whether it be religious fear, social fear, etc). There is no other logical reason.

So, again, I ask: What is so scary about gay marriage?


Nothing is scary about it.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. Those who oppose gay marriage seek to preserve the sanctity of Holy Matrimony. Many same-sex couples are simply interested in the government's acknowledgement of their relationship. They are not asking for any religion to accept gay marriages.

SO…….Call it something else (civil union) and collect your benefits. Nobody gives a crap, really.



In your opinion, what is the reason they aren't against other non religious marriages?
I am married and I was married in a non religious ceremony in a non religious setting.
My Father is a Registrar for the Local Council and only performs non religious ceremonies, in fact our government employed Registrars ONLY master non religious ceremonies so why is there not protests outside his work?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Opened this thread up and it's about what I expected. Classy as usual, ATS.

Plain and simple - marriage predates Christianity. The word marriage does not have any religious meaning behind it. So the idiots saying "call it something else" really aren't making a valid point. It shouldn't have to be called something else, because marriage is simply what two adults committing themselves to each other legally is called.

Gay individuals getting married doesn't affect anyone else. Your marriage is not affected. Your kids are asking why two guys or two girls are together? Simple answer. "They love each other." They don't really need to hear anything else beyond that.

Gays being accepted in our society isn't going to turn your kids gay. Nor are there "more gays" today because of that acceptance. Ask your grandparents about all those unmarried "bachelors" and "room mates" that they knew back in the day. Yeah. Those were the gay folks.

"BUT CHRISTIANS ARE THE MAJORITY HERE IN 'MERICA!"
Most Christians pick and choose what they want to follow from the Bible anyway, so this is not a valid argument. You all eat seafood, wear clothes of mixed fabrics, have piercings, tattoos, and cut your hair and beards. You're going to Hell one way or another according to your own book.

Acting like following the rules regarding gays is somehow more important than those other rules is intellectually dishonest. I'd almost have more respect for people if they just admitted that it grosses them out, as apposed to trying to chalk it up to their religion or being morally superior.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Very simple question here. It is simple logic that gay marriage cannot and will not effect any person outside of that particular relationship. It cannot effect my marriage. It cannot effect yours.

With that in mind, I have to ask:

What is so scary about gay marriage? Fear is literally the only reason that people are against it (whether it be religious fear, social fear, etc). There is no other logical reason.

So, again, I ask: What is so scary about gay marriage?


It's pretty simple actually. It is the term itself. Christians feel that that particular term belongs to a long standing traditional union between a man and women who take vows to each other under God. They reject the idea of homosexual marriage because it is against the core beliefs of their faith and overwhelmingly feel that it is a mockery.... A blasphemy if you will to call it marriage.

Here is an experiment, hit the street and ask 20 people if they agree with "gay marriage" in liberal America today you will probably get 12 people who say they agree with it. Go back out and ask 20 other people if they agree in "gay unions" and I bet my bottom dollar you get 18 who say they agree.

I feel it's the term itself that scares people, not the implications. With the divorce rate the way it is and the way the government abuses all of us, I just can't see why anyone would have a problem with it outside of the actual term of marriage.

Then again, words are powerful, so are traditions and beliefs, however misguided. It's a complicated world with complicated people.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
The bottom line is, gay people will be allowed to married and life will go on. Just like giving blacks the right to vote did not lead to a catastrophe, just like going women the right to vote did not end male domination of the political system or the business world.

It is really such a futile fight on behalf of the fundamentalists, traditionalists, Christians and haters.

You might as well try to make gun laws to stop criminals from committing crime


Read that line again and take your own advice...



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   
divorce rates are so high i dont know how anyone can really clain that marriage is what it once was. Hollywood helped destroy marriage with its fanatical bul# as well.

And on the other hand, how many women throughout history have stayed in miserable marriages and been unhappy their entire life but stayed due to the stigma attahced to failed marriage



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Condoning Homosexuality affects society as a whole and especially young childrens attitudes and behavior.

Its always been around forever and its always going to be here, but personally its one of those things kids just dont need to know about until they are old enough to understand it. Very young children really have way TMI to deal with on a day to day basis.

I personally could care less, but I have seen changes in society as a whole due to laxing of former taboos.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Morgenstern89
Opened this thread up and it's about what I expected. Classy as usual, ATS.

Plain and simple - marriage predates Christianity. The word marriage does not have any religious meaning behind it. So the idiots saying "call it something else" really aren't making a valid point. It shouldn't have to be called something else, because marriage is simply what two adults committing themselves to each other legally is called.



Christianity never claimed to "originate" marriage, rather it only built its understanding of marriage from a foundation laid long ago in the ancient world.

People who use this talking point are just regurgitating irrelevant nonsense.

Secondly, your definition of Marriage is far removed from my own. I am not required to conform to your perception and I am not asking you to conform to mine. For me the word marriage carries a distinct and deep religious meaning, you have no right to force me to forsake what it means to me. Sure, you are free to disagree with me and perceive it with what ever meaning you like, but that freedom is a two way street.

Regarding the legality of the matter. The answer is not MORE legislation or control issued from the state or federal governments, the answer is LESS legislation, or more specifically NO legislation or special provisions regarding anybodies definition of their relationships.

My marriage is a matter between me, my wife, and God. Sure the State has forced its way into my relationship by demanding that i report my "status" to them for tax purposes among other things. But this should not be the case.

There are other ways to handle the legal issues that arise such as power of attorney, dependency status, hospital visitation rights.. ect which can and should have nothing to do with the "status" of a persons relationship, much less what they want to call it. Plenty of people live together without getting married who would also like to be able to make a legal connection to each other for mutual benefit.

Get Government out of it and let people fashion their own lives and relationships as they see fit. Make society more free with less regulation.

unless of course you wish to continue on with your "crusade" to bash Christianity.

Would you demand that Muslims conform to your definition of Marriage and attempt to force Islamic groups to recognize same sex relationships? Just curious....

Soul



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join