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 Maslo
I agree with this ruling.
reply to post by Garfee
There's no difference between "the church" - as you put it - as the local golf club. They're private enterprises which should have no influence outside of it's own affairs - which still need to be within the law.
posted by jude11
A "Human Right" is whatever a human desires to do with their life as long as it does not harm others in doing so.
Last time I checked, Gay Marriage hurts no one but the Church with their piety and sanctimonious stance exclusively granted to them by themselves, and the ignorant with their fear of the unknown.
Sometimes one and the same.
Peace
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by deepankarm
And restricting gay marriage is not a 'government right'.
I wish i could give you many stars for this.
Originally posted by petrus4
Originally posted by Maslo
I agree with this ruling.
Anyone who is either heterosexual themselves, or who does not engage in cultural Marxism to the point of a complete absence of logic, is likely to agree with it.
As I've said before; I have nothing whatsoever against homosexuality being integrated into mainstream human society. I just wish the gays would stop trying to cause so much secondary societal damage in the process.
reply to post by petrus4
I just wish the gays would stop trying to cause so much secondary societal damage in the process.
Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Marriage is between a man and a woman. The antichrist will spread homosexuality prior to his arrival on earth and will force world governments to make it acceptable. He is working from behind the scenes laying the groundwork for his imminent arrival.
Originally posted by SteelToe
The truth is that when a society degrades to the point of accepting all kinds of deviant behaviors it is apathetic and corrupt and will destroy itself from within until the natural balance is restored.
You can do what ever you want sexually behind closed doors. But when you try to build the laws of society around your personal sexual behaviors something is wrong.
Originally posted by kaylaluv
All this is about being able to be with the one you love, to commit to the one you want to commit to, in the SAME WAY that everyone else does, without discrimination. There's nothing "deviant" about it.
Originally posted by deepankarm
Glad to see many 'supporters' acknowledging that marriage isn't a human right, so can we remove the rights issue here ???
And some are moving goalposts as usual.
It's a massive victory for the protecters of MARRIAGE like me and many others like it or not.
Originally posted by petrus4
Originally posted by kaylaluv
All this is about being able to be with the one you love, to commit to the one you want to commit to, in the SAME WAY that everyone else does, without discrimination. There's nothing "deviant" about it.
Then if they are in love, they should not need a contract from the state in order to verify it.
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by deepankarm
Glad to see many 'supporters' acknowledging that marriage isn't a human right, so can we remove the rights issue here ???
And some are moving goalposts as usual.
It's a massive victory for the protecters of MARRIAGE like me and many others like it or not.
It may not be a human right to get a marriage license from the state, but it IS a civil right. It wasn't a human right for blacks to sit in the front of the bus either, but it WAS a civil right, and now blacks are no longer forced to sit in the back of the bus.
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by petrus4
Originally posted by kaylaluv
All this is about being able to be with the one you love, to commit to the one you want to commit to, in the SAME WAY that everyone else does, without discrimination. There's nothing "deviant" about it.
Then if they are in love, they should not need a contract from the state in order to verify it.
Neither do heterosexuals. But some heterosexuals want to enter into that contract for legal AND symbolic reasons. So why can't gays?
Originally posted by petrus4
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by deepankarm
Glad to see many 'supporters' acknowledging that marriage isn't a human right, so can we remove the rights issue here ???
And some are moving goalposts as usual.
It's a massive victory for the protecters of MARRIAGE like me and many others like it or not.
It may not be a human right to get a marriage license from the state, but it IS a civil right. It wasn't a human right for blacks to sit in the front of the bus either, but it WAS a civil right, and now blacks are no longer forced to sit in the back of the bus.
Gays having the ability to get married is not the issue, here.
Their frivolous abuse of semantics, based as always on pure, hysterical emotionalism, is.
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by petrus4
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by deepankarm
Glad to see many 'supporters' acknowledging that marriage isn't a human right, so can we remove the rights issue here ???
And some are moving goalposts as usual.
It's a massive victory for the protecters of MARRIAGE like me and many others like it or not.
It may not be a human right to get a marriage license from the state, but it IS a civil right. It wasn't a human right for blacks to sit in the front of the bus either, but it WAS a civil right, and now blacks are no longer forced to sit in the back of the bus.
Gays having the ability to get married is not the issue, here.
Their frivolous abuse of semantics, based as always on pure, hysterical emotionalism, is.
Sorry, don't understand. What abuse of semantics are you referring to?