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.
(AP) -- Amendments to ban same-sex marriage are projected to win approval Tuesday in three states -- including Wisconsin, where gay-rights activists had nursed hopes of engineering the first defeat of such a ban.
Nationwide, a total of 205 measures were on the ballots in 37 states -- ranging from routine bond issues to a riveting contest in South Dakota, where voters chose whether to uphold or reject a toughest-in-the-nation law that would ban virtually all abortions.
www.cnn.com...
Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think I heard on TV similar amendments have passed in four states.
I support some type of civil union for gay couples that gives them the same legal advantages married couples enjoy, but I don't think it should be called "marriage" for historical and religious reasons.
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
as far as I am concerned, its no one elses business who and how two consenting adults want to love or do. gay marriage sure as hell ain't gonna destroy the country. Being paranoid and obsessed about it to the detriment of more pressing issues will.
posted by Scyman
Its odd how in the city of Denver one can posses an ounce of MJ. Yet the state that same bill didn’t pass . . I guess one might say Denver is a bit more liberal then the rest of the state?
Originally posted by donwhite
the anti gay movement is religion, pure and simple, at its worst.
posted by timeless test
I'm not in any position to debate US constitutional law with you but that statement simply will not wash on any level. Just because a religion, (of whatever color), objects to something doesn't mean that a legal prohibition or restriction is the imposition of religious dogma in law. The Christian religion is pretty clear on it's opposition to theft, murder and a range of other bad habits but does that mean that anti burglary laws are a religious movement?
posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
As far as I am concerned, its no ones business who and how two consenting adults want to . . Being paranoid and obsessed about it to the detriment of more pressing issues . . “ [Edited by Don W]
Originally posted by donwhite
So, how do I differentiate between murder and homosexuality? For me it’s easy. The one is definitely destructive of the civil order, whereas the other is clearly not.
...I say again, “anti-gay” is religion at its worst.
posted by Aelita
The institute of marriage and family was created in large part because of central importance of procreation and raising kids. For the same reasons society extends privileges to married couples. I'm all for gay people loving each other but priority should be given to the "breeders" as some gay people call us straight folk.
"Marriage" for gay people? Puh-leeze. When I moved in with my g/f, I couldn't get health insurance coverage for her. If it was a boyfriend, it would have been easy. That's crazy. [Edited by Don W]
posted by timeless test
posted by donwhite
So, how do I differentiate between murder and homosexuality? For me it’s easy. The one is definitely destructive of the civil order, whereas the other is clearly not...I say again, “anti-gay” is religion at its worst.
My issue is that you equate anti-gay activity with religion. Murder is not a terribly meaningful comparison . . What about cannibalism? [Edited by Don W]
So is anti-cannibalistic legislation "religion at its worst"? Of course it isn't, it is simply that society as a whole draws lines at certain taboo acts which it considers unacceptable for a huge variety of reasons. Using religion as an excuse for condemning anti-gay attitudes is simply hiding from the very real issue . .
LONDON, Ky. Wed Nov 8, 2006 - A woman who was bitten by a snake at a church that neighbors say practices serpent handling died of her wounds hours later, a newspaper reported. Linda Long, 48, was bitten Sunday at East London Holiness Church, where the reptiles are handled as part of religious services . . "
“ . . that a considerable proportion of the population, God fearing or otherwise, find homosexual relationships and, in particular, their preferential treatment in comparison to some other lifestyles objectionable or maybe unnerving.
Consistency, thou art a jewel. This is one of those popular sayings like “Be good, and you will be happy,” or “Virtue is its own reward”
www.bartleby.com...
Are they misguided in this opinion? - well possibly so but those who support the gay agenda will need to find much more rational arguments in their favor than to simply blame religion if they are to win more wholehearted approval.
Originally posted by donwhite
So I’m a situational ethics person. And I offer, “who is not?”
I don’t agree that in 2006 there is a “real issue.”
It seems to me you are mixing two arguments. Is it Scriptural? And is it fair? I have been arguing my take is that opponents to legalized gay relationships were motived by religious conviction,
Anti-homosexuality is agitated almost 100% from the pulpits of America’s churches.
Originally posted by MasterJedi
I just don't believe that homosexuality is natural.