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: 7
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


You cannot seriously be using the old "bible says it's wrong" argument. It's so lame to ignore all those other parts of the old testament (like God saying we should stone children who are disobedient), while focusing on this part. It's just an excuse - a rationalization for the irrational fears.




posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by seabag
 


You cannot seriously be using the old "bible says it's wrong" argument. It's so lame to ignore all those other parts of the old testament (like God saying we should stone children who are disobedient), while focusing on this part. It's just an excuse - a rationalization for the irrational fears.


Ummmm...it's not my argument! The OP asked what the hangup was and I delivered!

You're welcome to kill the messenger but it won't fix your problem!



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm reluctant to get into yet another homosexuality thread. Unless people are interested in discussing and learning, the topic gets useless in a hurry.

But, on to the question.

What problems does it cause? The fundamental problem is that, whatever your beliefs about marriage were in the past, you must not hold them publicly any longer, or you will be punished. For example, if someone opposed to gay marriage owns a meeting hall and does not wish it to be used to promote gay marriage, he may be charged and fined.

If the group owning such a hall is a religious group, they may lose their tax exempt status.

Counsellors and other professionals not wishing to work with gays have lost their licenses.

Individuals have been fired for expressing traditional marriage views in facebook postings.

Schools will teach your children that gay marriage is perfectly normal, acceptable, and the equivalent of heterosexual marriage, without even informing you that they will, or allowing you to get your children excused. Your children may be exempted from saying the Pledge of Allegiance, but they won't be exempted from gay friendly lessons and teachings.

Any attempt to insert meaningful conscience clauses in state laws have been rejected.



Replace the word 'gay' with black in any of those scenarios and instantly everyone will scream 'racism'
And so they should.

Just to make myself very clear, I intend no offence to coloured people by comparing them to gay people. I am just trying to point out the obvious hypocrisy of these claims.
edit on 27-5-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

A lot of words in your Post Chuck.

Why waste the Bandwidth, and just Summerize a Tad.

You Basically believe that Gays are a sort of 2nd Class Citizen,and should not be afforded the same Freedoms we Cherish so greatly in this Country.

But thanks for that, You remind me again of the Hypocrisy of the Religious Zealots, and why I have such a Disdain for them.





posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 



I have heard them arguing amongst themselves whether I am or not and most of them say that I am not.

If it wasn’t obvious to many, why would there be a debate?

Just wondering!



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by markosity1973
 



I have heard them arguing amongst themselves whether I am or not and most of them say that I am not.

If it wasn’t obvious to many, why would there be a debate?

Just wondering!



And to wonder is human nature


Because one of them saw me out of work with my partner in a restaurant having dinner. There were no PDA's or anything, they just saw us sitting there eating our dinner.

They went back to work and were all like 'Oh my goodness, you will NEVER guess whom I saw xxxx having dinner with. It was a GUY, I think he might be gay'



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
If your a religious fool..you should automatically have no say in what goes on in daily life. You have already proven to be a brain washed idiot and have no rational contribution to offer.

You know if someone lived their life based on any other book...and followed it word for word..they would be labeled insane...why do the religious get a pass?

How dare anyone say it is for the sanctity of marriage...when you have straight couples getting married for months, days or hours..on a whim. How about people who use the ceremony for gain..money, entry into country..etc. Maybe once marriage meant something..not now...if straight couples treat marriage like a game...why not give the gays a chance..maybe they can bring some legitimacy back to it.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


It has to be "marriage" NOT "civil unions". All laws in all the states use the term "marriage" when discussing property and the other associated rights. All the laws would have to be changed in all 50 states to put civil unions on an equal basis as "marriage" which would be improbable even if conservatives were a reasonable group. Since they are not then improbable would simply be impossible. It's "all" or nothing and I think all is the only way to go.
edit on 27-5-2013 by AkhenatenII because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


1. With good reason . . . many believe that TPTB use the issue along with a list of other issues to shred traditional Judeo/Christian foundational values AND THE FAMILY--toward a tyrannical world government where children are taken from parents and reared by the State.

2. Many Christian folks believe the issue is being used as a wedge issue to marginalize their religion, spirituality and ultimately themselves. Witness fines and prison looming for Preachers in Canada who dare to preach simple Bible verses about homosexuality.

3. Many believe that the more homosexual marriage is supported, glamorized etc. in the body politic, the more impressionable borderline blokes will be seduced into a destructive life-style that results in their living 20 years less than they would otherwise.

4. It's particularly an absurd issue to many given that even long term homosexual relationships tend to NOT be monogamous--whether legally "married" or not. That, to many, degrades the whole idea of "MARRIAGE" even more--or further--than the heterosexual sleeping around already does to an outrageous degree.

5. Extremely few--statistically--homosexuals report WANTING marriage. Of those who legally marry--a fraction remain so after a few years. Even fewer remain so and monogamously sexually. That makes--by such statistics--a frightful mockery of marriage to many folks.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm reluctant to get into yet another homosexuality thread. Unless people are interested in discussing and learning, the topic gets useless in a hurry.


Obviously learning isn't your strong point seeing as you rolled in here with what I can assume are the same opinions you've had for years and still zero evidence to back them up.


Gay marriage (And, no, I still haven't forgiven anyone for destroying that happy word "gay.") eliminates the traditional definition of marriage and replaces it with a new one.


So did the Christian definition of marriage


Instead of being a union centered on the welfare of children, male-female procreation, and the benefit to the public. "Marriage" will become something any two people who really like each other can do.

The incentives given to by the State to encourage the older purposes of marriage, will now be distributed to people who can claim to be BFFs.


A man and a woman do not have to spawn to enter marriage. There is no brooding prerequisite to enter this legal contract whatsoever. What the state recognizes are marriage is already divorced from your definition. That is what makes your definition personal and unique. The entire country does not have to subscribe to the same defintion of marriage, as one person's, or one religions, or one idea of marriage is not neccessarily correct; suggesting it is is strictly arrogant and, last time I checked, Christians were supposed to be humble.


What problems does it cause? The fundamental problem is that, whatever your beliefs about marriage were in the past, you must not hold them publicly any longer, or you will be punished. For example, if someone opposed to gay marriage owns a meeting hall and does not wish it to be used to promote gay marriage, he may be charged and fined.


Protected grounds. If we didn't have them, black people would still be using separate water fountains. It's not a big deal. If you want to make money off of people, then make money off of all people. If you want to make money of a select group of like-minded bigots, move to a country that practices apartheid. Your concern is not valid.


If the group owning such a hall is a religious group, they may lose their tax exempt status.


Religious institutions should be paying taxes just like everyone else in the first place. Tell me what makes them so special that they shouldn't.


Counsellors and other professionals not wishing to work with gays have lost their licenses.


If that's the case, they're not exactly professionals, so they don't get to keep the title.


Individuals have been fired for expressing traditional marriage views in facebook postings.


I've seen those facebook postings, and it's not that they are expressing traditional marriage values, it's that they're acting like jackasses and using extremely vulgar, extremely innappropriate language which represents the company that they work for very poorly. It's funny, you just contradicted an earlier point of yours... you say people who own businesses should be allowed to discriminate, but then you say people who own businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. It seems like the only people who are allowed to discriminate, in your opinion, are those with "traditional marriage values", and those without them are not allowed to discriminate against those with them.

Ridiculous.



Schools will teach your children that gay marriage is perfectly normal, acceptable, and the equivalent of heterosexual marriage, without even informing you that they will, or allowing you to get your children excused. Your children may be exempted from saying the Pledge of Allegiance, but they won't be exempted from gay friendly lessons and teachings.


"I do not understand this, and I won't have my children understanding it either!"

Denied.


Any attempt to insert meaningful conscience clauses in state laws have been rejected.

While the homosexual drive for full rights for everyone seems innocent at first glance, in fact it is being obtained only by depriving others of their rights. Some will argue that equal rights for gays is so essential to society that any cost is worth paying, but I wonder. Certainly gays believe it's a good deal, but what does society get from it? In other words, what positive reason is there to afford gays the right to change the concept of marriage?


First of all, you've failed to outline any negative repurcussions. Second of all, use your brain; come on. If gay couples can get married, they get financial benefits, which will increase their financial stability and allow them to possibly be able to adopt children. Wasn't your initial argument "think about the children"?



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AkhenatenII
 


I gather that you believe that

BY DEFINITION--because conservatives disagree foundationally with some of your priorities and values--e.g. homosexual marriage--

that you label them by definition UNREASONABLE.

Yet conservatives are BY YOUR DEFINITION, supposedly, . . . the bigots.

There are plenty of good REASONABLE FACTORS about which to oppose homosexual marriage in very reasonable ways.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by AkhenatenII
 


I gather that you believe that

BY DEFINITION--because conservatives disagree foundationally with some of your priorities and values--e.g. homosexual marriage--

that you label them by definition UNREASONABLE.

Yet conservatives are BY YOUR DEFINITION, supposedly, . . . the bigots.

There are plenty of good REASONABLE FACTORS about which to oppose homosexual marriage in very reasonable ways.


Instead of the reverse name calling, how about you get to your point and bring up these 'reasonable ways' so we can debate them.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
Of those who legally marry--a fraction remain so after a few years. Even fewer remain so and monogamously sexually. That makes--by such statistics--a frightful mockery of marriage to many folks.
Ya , OK.
Heterosexual Divorce rate is about 50%.
Are you calling that a Recipe of Success ?

Your Funny .



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightOrange

First of all, you've failed to outline any negative repurcussions. Second of all, use your brain; come on. If gay couples can get married, they get financial benefits, which will increase their financial stability and allow them to possibly be able to adopt children. Wasn't your initial argument "think about the children"?


In terms of children reared by homosexual couples . . . the more solid research is now in.

Their children are MUCH MORE at risk for sexual abuse as well as for becoming homosexual themselves well above average statistical expectations.

Further, the earlier homosexual done research on such subjects has been documented TO HAVE BEEN DONE WITH "COOKED BOOKS."

That is, the homosexual researchers were proven to have jiggered the data and the statistics to show what their biases WANTED the outcomes to be.

Soooo, in terms of the children of homosexual marriages--there's plenty of reasonable data to indicate such couples rearing children--as a group--put the children at much significantly increased risk for abuse and for dysfunctional life choices than would otherwise be the statistical norm.
.



edit on 27/5/2013 by BO XIAN because: additioni



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
A majority of the fear generated about homosexuals is mostly due to religious teachings. You always see bible thumpers keep yelling "It's an abomination!" Or anything else along those lines.

To me I see no problem with gay marriage. These people didn't choose to be the way they are. Their born that way. And I'm not one to tell people what they can, and cannot do. It's rather selfish, and pathetic.

People tend to also say marriage between men and women is "sacred" and gay marriage infringes on that. But if you look at marriages today, most end up in divorce. So, what these people should be babbling about instead, is why people engage in a "sacred" event, and then end up ending it some months/years later. Doesn't seem very sacred to me if you can go about and marry, then end it whenever you please.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by LightOrange
reply to post by seabag
 


There isn't a person on this planet who has universal acceptance from everyone. Not sure what your point is. Gay people aren't demanding universal acceptance; they're demanding equal rights.


So take your rights and call it Civil Union!

What's the problem? The word "marriage" is the big hang up for most. What's your problem with civil union? Take your equal right and move along!


What's the problem? That would be changing what marriage is !!!




Marriage [mar-ij]

The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.


^ Welcome to how stupid the religious argument sounds.

I personally don't care what it's called. If it affords the exact same rights and benefits as any other marriage then call it whatever, although I find it incredibly asinine to say it's not marriage when it literally is marriage.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN

Originally posted by LightOrange

First of all, you've failed to outline any negative repurcussions. Second of all, use your brain; come on. If gay couples can get married, they get financial benefits, which will increase their financial stability and allow them to possibly be able to adopt children. Wasn't your initial argument "think about the children"?


In terms of children reared by homosexual couples . . . the more solid research is now in.

Their children are MUCH MORE at risk for sexual abuse as well as for becoming homosexual themselves well above average statistical expectations.

Further, the earlier homosexual done research on such subjects has been documented TO HAVE BEEN DONE WITH "COOKED BOOKS."

That is, the homosexual researchers were proven to have jiggered the data and the statistics to show what their biases WANTED the outcomes to be.

Soooo, in terms of the children of homosexual marriages--there's plenty of reasonable data to indicate such couples rearing children--as a group--put the children at much significantly increased risk for abuse and for dysfunctional life choices than would otherwise be the statistical norm.
.



edit on 27/5/2013 by BO XIAN because: additioni


I'm not sure why in the hell you would have an ATS account at all if you're going to make such radical claims without a source.

Provide it. And it better not be from Godhatesfags.com or Faux News, assuming you're not making it up on the spot, which I'm banking on.

All I'm finding is evidence to the contrary of your ridiculous assertion:



“There’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences are of raising a child in a…single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not,” Scalia declared.

Benjamin Siegel says Scalia’s contention is—not to get too technical—baloney.

Siegel, a School of Medicine professor of pediatrics, coauthored a report, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics the week before the court case, arguing that three decades of research concur that kids of gay parents are doing just fine.


Source
edit on 27-5-2013 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Where did I say that heterosexual--even "Christian" marriages were a great success currently. The same PTB have waged a war on heterosexual marriage and family life for many decades, too--quite successfully.

Actually, for Christians who are INTRINSIC, authentic Christians meaningfully and congruently involved in practicing their faith in church related relationships--their divorce rate is significantly lower.

In terms of the reasonable factors etc., I've mentioned some in this thread already. I'm not feeling well physically and do not have time to look up the other threads on ATS where such factors and research have been more thoroughly presented. Focus On The Family has some good resources on such issues for those seriously interested in reality and the truth about such factors.

I just think that all the pontificating and screaming about homosexual marriage when it's largely a farce statistically indicates that there's a LOT more going on with the issue than "equal marriage rights."

To me . . . it's a bit like . . . insisting that MISS AMERICA PAGENT ALLOW MEN to enter as an "equality" right thing. Even if the battle is won . . . it would NO LONGER BE A "MISS" AMERICA Pagent, now would it.

Pretending that homosexual marriage wherein extremely few remain married very long and even those who do have a sexually "open" "marriage' virtually from the git-go--pretending that THAT kind of a "marriage" really fits the term "marriage" is turning definitions and reality on its head.

Folks can politically succeed in doing that. But at what cost? What are the consequences? For what eternal purposes? For what lasting cultural benefit? . . . to speed the disintegration of the culture and the family? How will that benefit homosexuals or anyone else?

When family life disintegrates, the culture disintegrates. Homosexuals who believe they will be better off in a disintegrated, shredded culture might do well to take more anthropology, sociology etc. even with all the rabidly liberal profs teaching such courses.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN


2. Many Christian folks believe the issue is being used as a wedge issue to marginalize their religion, spirituality and ultimately themselves. Witness fines and prison looming for Preachers in Canada who dare to preach simple Bible verses about homosexuality.


Do you think there would be fines and/or prison looming for Preachers who preach we should follow God's instructions to stone disobedient children?

The rest of your "facts" come from the far right religious groups like the Family Research Council, and have been debunked many times.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



The best part about this thread, so far, is the people that are arguing that "it isnt about fear, its about being afraid of losing our christian heritage".


The funniest part about this thread is that you don’t want to know what others think. You want to get on your soapbox, pat each other on the back for your thoughts, and ridicule everyone else.

Nobody is afraid of gay marriage!


Nobody cares!!

In the end, you’re going do what you want and you still won’t have universal acceptance…even when it’s legal!

Enjoy!!


You've said it yourself. You are trying to "preserve" your "heritage". You are WORRIED about losing it.

But no, it's got nothing to do with fear at all



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join