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.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Ultimately you are using religion as an excuse to discriminate against a minority, who has done nothing to warrant such abuse. Would you ask a group to pay taxes and follow the laws of the country, yet deprive them of the very benefits of being a part of that country?
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
There is a science to attraction, yet scientists have yet to figure it out, and many are starting to believe that is the key to what makes a person gay or straight lies within that research. So while it may seem convenient to state that a person is gay by choice, the hard reality is that they are born that way, so the original assessment is that they are a minority, by birth, different in the aspect that they are not attracted to the opposite sex, but are to the same sex.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
But that is the point, you are using religion as an excuse to discriminate against one group of people.
Based off of the very arguments that you have presented, those who do not believe or follow the same sect of Christianity, their marriages would be invalid and void,
For years many have used religion as an excuse to execute and keep discrimination alive,
It would be a shame if that happened to the USA, all over people such as yourself, showing intolerance,
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. -- Ephesians 6:12 KJV
If planting, do you know that it matters where you plant that seed? In fertile soil the seed will grow, otherwise the effort is just a waste of time and energy.
We don't "create" our own beliefs. We "choose" from a variety around us, and religion provides one source for our choices.
Originally posted by yes4141
This is seemingly an apt quote. Seems to imply that people should not simply accept what is told to them by anyone/ thing - that would most definitely include the very powerful bible and church. It would also seem likely to instruct people not to blindly subjugate/ punish/ outcast people if they have not made another person suffer- e.g. actual 'morality' rather than taught morality.
It is almost a skill to be so wonderfully patronising. Subjective enjoyment/ happiness seems to hold no value to you- does 'flesh' (not sure why I'm adhering to your outlook...) enjoyment have less worth than supposed 'spiritual' enjoyment?
Subjectively it likely does not and what other intuition do we have but our own? If we cannot subjectively realise enjoyment for the 'soul' then there is no possible way for us to have any perception of such a thing. All we have, fundamentally, is our own senses and experiences that those senses give us- if this 'soul enjoyment' is immeasurably more important than 'flesh enjoyment' then how can people be expected to even begin to conceive of such a thing when they have no way of sensing it? It is just as possible (far, far more really) to be fiction as it is to be how others explain it to be.
I absolutely, emphatically disagree. We do NOT choose what we believe.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Funny, as the accepted definition of the word discriminate is as follows:
The unjust of prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age or sex.
You say that you discriminate against an activity, however, by the very arguments that you have presented, you are discriminating and preventing the fundamental right for a group of people to be happy
While you are correct that kings marry for duty, the point being that in the USA, there is no king, nor is there royalty, so why do people get married, if not for the concept of love and wanting to be with another person?
Here again, based off of your arguments, it could be argued, and successfully that if a marriage is not based off of a sect of Christianity, it would not be valid or acceptable,
There is where you are wrong, as it is not the design of man that the arguments have been used to espouse discrimination on other groups of people in history.
Every group that has suffered major forms of discrimination, religion, in particular that of Christianity was used as the baseline excuse.
Here again, seems that there is a fallacy in the argument that people can not change, as they can, if they want to.
So there you go, the examples of discrimination, along with a good definition, along with the examples of hatred, all coming from the base arguments of religion.
And all of this cause one group wants to be equal in a society, which despises them for what they were born to be.
Yet here again, you fail to accept or realize, that in the USA, no religion or church would be compelled to change its ways or forced to perform a marriage with same sex couples. As all churches would be considered to be private organizations, and the precedent has already been set.
Originally posted by DRAZIW
Why must they chose to label their form of union a "marriage?"
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Being a homosexual is not an activity. It is how people are born, for those that are. It simply means that if a person is a homosexual they are attracted to members of the same sex, namely theirs. So where is the activity in that?
Because it has been proven in a court of law that a gay union is not equal to a marriage. There is a fundamental inequality in how the law looks at such, and therefore it serves to discriminate against one group all based on sexual orientation.
Yes, that is true, that people were getting married long before Jesus came onto the picture, however, you are using Christianity and the Bible
Not really, as not all of us discriminate against anyone. Discrimination is not just about preferences, it is about the unjust prejudicial treatment of a group of people, based on a category.
Gay people can not change, according to the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatrist Association, that is something that can not be changed, no matter how hard they try. A gay man can not become straight, and those places that do such, do far more damage than good, and such practices fail under all peer review.
We are not talking about evil, unless you are saying that Gay people are evil. Are you saying that?
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. -- Ecclesiastes 7:29 KJV
No there you are wrong. In all court cases, where the Boy Scouts of America has been brought before, they have been victorious, and the courts ruled that they are a private organization, therefore outside of the law when it comes to who they can let in. Churches would fall under the same category, and there fore Priests will be excluded from such.
Originally posted by DRAZIW
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Ultimately you are using religion as an excuse to discriminate against a minority, who has done nothing to warrant such abuse. Would you ask a group to pay taxes and follow the laws of the country, yet deprive them of the very benefits of being a part of that country?
That's the problem here. It's all about interpretation and twisting language. This is not a minority. These are people defined by their "activity", not by race or gender or country of origin, or handicap or age, or any factor that is out of their control, nor by established belief system we call religion that teaches morals and ethics.
edit on 9-10-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)edit on 9-10-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)
No words. We don't even know how to process this. A gay Tennessee couple was beaten by church leaders this past week after trying to attend services at the Grace Fellowship Church.
What's more mind-boggling is that one of the attackers was one of their fathers. In fact, he even instigated the assault.
Jerry Pittman, Jr. says that when he and his boyfriend Dustin Lee arrived to the church, this happened:
"I went over to take the keys out of the ignition and all the sudden I hear someone say 'sic 'em!'
My uncle and two other deacons came over to the car per my dad's request. My uncle smashed me in the door as the other deacon knocked my boyfriend back so he couldn't help me, punching him in his face and his chest. The other deacon came and hit me through my car window in my back."
No bystanders came to their aid during the attack.
Charges have since been filed against deacons Billy Sims, Eugene McCoy, Patrick Flatt, and Jerry Pittman, Sr.
Originally posted by spw184
Now ask yourself, are gays a minority group?
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Yes the State took it over long before the USA was a country, and was regulating it long before we came on to discuss and debate this issue. As it is now in the hands of the state, it should not be do discriminate against anyone, as the state and religion are 2 separate issues.