Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by IndigoRing

.

Its unfortunate the Fundamental Christian Right - - - (same group that denied black people rights) - - - has such influence over so many.

What's really so unfortunate is that you cannot understand where your OWN beliefs come from

Uh huh

Here are the 2 other posts of yours I found in this thread. And you quote Rense. And Overlords of Chaos overlordsofchaos.com...

Have you considered professional help?

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly view their role as the proselytizers of a new faith.... The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new; the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of Humanism...." The Official Journal of the American Humanist Association,John Dunphy in 1983 www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lenin "The best revolutionary is A YOUTH DEVOID OF MORALS This is an example of how the homosexual activists work - name calling and directly implying either threats or retribution. Please understand that you are now fighting WITH those that have changed people's morality to suit THEIR agenda. Those voters in Noth Carolina, like the others states that have rejected homosexual marriage, still know that it is against their morals which have not changed on this subject. You want to believe that morals have to change with society, that somehow a flat screen and mobile phone is justification for changing morality. Utter failure of logic, and many are opening their eyes to the utter failure of the promises of humanism. What has humanism wrought except increases in murder, rape, sodomy, child molestation, theft, blasphemy, prisons, tensions between races, crime, fear...? www.abovetopsecret.com...

ok, let me just take a look back through history here... hmmm... lettts seeee.

I'm looking for a NEED to teach sexual immorality.... hmmmm.... looking, looking....

NOPE... Actually, that can be chalked up to the carnal nature of man and that is just the way it is.
it's been ongoing since the dawn of time and furthermore, making women put more clothes on doesn't stop them from being used, abused and objectified. Anyone who uses this as an excuse simply has a lack of control and fixing that problem isn't a matter of indoctrination, but rather fixing one's inability to look inward and do some self examination.

When you are taught something, you can take it or leave it when you have all sides of the story to look at... but when you are lied to about your entire history... that's a the true crime here.

So what are these gay rights activists lying about? the fact that they are gay? hmmmm... nah...

ok, who has been lying TO these people to make them think they are gay? and for what reason? To promote more child adoptions? Oh, how terrible. Oh oh oh... that's right... breaking down the family unit. that's right, breaking down that Godly rightious part of our lives that says we MUST go find a man to marry and we MUST have his babies and we MUST do what he says because he is head of household and we are just a slave to the ones in charge. Is that the dogma they are trying to destroy?

because god knows that if we all agree to just be good little woman and husbands who never cross the boundaries of conventionalism... all the bosses across big corporate America are going to double all men's salaries to compensate for women not working.

Sure they are.

Whoever came up with this idea that the breaking down of the family unit was what PROCEEDED the greedy corporate system, then they might need to go back to the much more simple chicken or the egg first equation and do a little more practice.

reply to post by WhoKnows100


As I mentioned in my first post, I did not mention that I was gay and Christian because I wanted you or any other ATS member who does not know me at all to debate it. My relationship with God and my Christianity aren't the subjects of this thread - it's about why gay marriage could be interpreted as a conservative value.

Please understand that I presented my point, as you mention when you say "[he/me] argues his case on the grounds of financial equality," because financial conservatism and keeping "Big Government" of of people's personal lives are well-known conservative talking points. I used that particular bullet because it was relevant to the topic of the thread.

My apologies if I have mislead you or did not communicate my intentions clearly. If the topic was about discussing homosexuality and how it fits or does not fit into Christianity - which this thread is not - I'd have discussed it from a topic-appropriate perspective.

reply to post by WhoKnows100


All of your posts are tl;dr.

Why don't you try to concisely and intelligently state your point.

From what I can gather you are a fundemental religious fanatic. Not saying that in an insulting way, just stating a general observation.

Political and religious associations, by way of the constitution are mutually exclusive. So your arguments are moot since this thread is about the political nature of gay marriage and not the religious nature.

Somebody please correct. I KNOW i misread that in all the political mumbo jumbo but I am pretty sure I just read the proof of the goals of communism written by anti-communists.

that can't be right... as proof would be written by actual communists themselves, right?

Seriously, I've gotta be reading something wrong here.

i will say this about some of those points, some seem pretty ridiculous when some just seem fair and just... oh, but we can't have fair and just if it's part of a communist plot. i forgot that part. we must suffer lies and corruption and serve ourselves up as disposable regardless of how tyrannical our own government can be, no matter how much worse it gets... as long as it isn't communist.


btw... I'm not saying this as a pro-communist but my ideas for straightening out government has some ideas that sound a little communist, I do have to say. i also know that it would be impossible without it covering at least half of the world. i also know that in certain ages (like before technology) it would never work. i think it will now though... and I think it will happen eventually regardless if mankind survives. Imo, the only other result is the destruction of mankind by wars and pollution.

From OP

1. Gay marriage promotes personal responsibility.

YES

2. Gay marriage promotes family values.

YES

3. Gay marriage promotes commitment and stability.

YES

4. Gay marriage promotes freedom.

YES

5. Gay marriage is an example of limited governmental powers.

YES

Legal Government Marriage is a contract. Nothing in that contract mentions god or religion. Gender is not relevant.

CONTRACT. Again - - Gender is not relevant

A contract is an agreement entered into voluntarily by two parties or more with the intention of creating a legal obligation, which may have elements in writing, though contracts can be made orally. The remedy for breach of contract can be "damages" or compensation of money. In equity, the remedy can be specific performance of the contract or an injunction. Both of these remedies award the party at loss the "benefit of the bargain" or expectation damages, which are greater than mere reliance damages, as in promissory estoppel. The parties may be natural persons or juristic persons. A contract is a legally enforceable promise or undertaking that something will or will not occur. The word promise can be used as a legal synonym for contract.[1], although care is required as a promise may not have the full standing of a contract, as when it is an agreement without consideration. en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by freakjive


I don't care if gays get married but I hate the term 'wrong side of history.' It's just ridiculous aggrandizement of one particular view of marriage. Laws outlawing sodomy? Yea, wrong side of history. Restricting marriage based on race? Yea, wrong side of history. Restricting marriage based on sex. No, that's just one plausible interpretation of what marriage is all about.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by freakjive

 

I don't care if gays get married but I hate the term 'wrong side of history.' It's just ridiculous aggrandizement of one particular view of marriage. Laws outlawing sodomy? Yea, wrong side of history. Restricting marriage based on race? Yea, wrong side of history. Restricting marriage based on sex. No, that's just one plausible interpretation of what marriage is all about.

Whatever.

President Obama. First Black president. First president to publicly support same sex marriage.

History in the making.

reply to post by Annee


You seem to have a shallow view of history. Obama technically made history by stating that his personal view is that they should get married, but don't you think that's going to be a tad bit overshadowed by the first president to pursue it as an actual civil right? Its like the difference between the Kansas Nebraska Act and Abolition. And what in the world does him being black have to do with it, lol.

I prefer the term history in the masking.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Annee

 

You seem to have a shallow view of history. Obama technically made history by stating that his personal view is that they should get married, but don't you think that's going to be a tad bit overshadowed by the first president to pursue it as an actual civil right? Its like the difference between the Kansas Nebraska Act and Abolition. And what in the world does him being black have to do with it, lol.

NO - - I don't like games.

What is your point?

Originally posted by snusfanatic
. . don't you think that's going to be a tad bit overshadowed by the first president to pursue it as an actual civil right?

And who exactly would that be?

Is this a psychic premonition?

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
I prefer the term history in the masking.

I've read some very interesting alternative histories from the beginning of time - - - to the James brothers and the Golden Circle.

One of my favorites is how we went from bartering to capitalism.

reply to post by Annee


Obama's position is that personally he's in favor of legalizing it, but that it should be left up to the people of each state. don't know who the first President will be who supports it as a civil right, but its a plausible position (as is Romney's and Obama's). But if you think history has this 'direction' its moving toward that President would obviously overshadow the wishy-washy, tepid position Obama has taken.

Again, its the difference between the Kansas Nebraska Act which is remembered as a blunder, and abolition. If he wants to be remembered as a great civil rights president and there is a some inevitability to legalizing it nationwide - this isn't the path to get there.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Annee

 

Obama's position is that personally he's in favor of legalizing it, but that it should be left up to the people of each state.

Well duh. Since it is currently part of law (I believe the Constitution) that states have marriage rights - - - what did you expect him to say?

Have you ever bothered to look up just why states have Marriage Rights? I have. Its basically based on discrimination. To keep "undesirables" out of your community.

Ever heard of the Fair Housing Act? Same thing. Prior to the Fair Housing Act - - - communities could band together to make sure only those they desired were able to buy houses in their neighborhood.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You do realize - - you have already excluded Obama from initiating an Equal Marriage Act.

Even though its possible he may be re-elected and do just that in the next four years.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
1963 US Congressional Record
45 Current Communist Goals

ya know what, I've never bothered looking into what communists do and don't believe because I wasn't really very interested,... from what I've seen, they appear to be MUCH better than capitalists, maybe we should look at them more closely. Is that what you were shooting for? If so, then WIN, if not, then EPIC FAIL!
Heck, just about anything would be better than this failing capitalism where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and anyone that's in between just pays for it all.

reply to post by Annee


I'm trained as a civil rights attorney and I deal with something housing, discrimination or advocacy related for 50 hours a week. Point is whatever this jumbled mess of issues is you've presented is a little mind boggling. You're gonna have to organize this into some kind of coherent position before this can continue.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Annee

 

I'm trained as a civil rights attorney and I deal with something housing, discrimination or advocacy related for 50 hours a week. Point is whatever this jumbled mess of issues is you've presented is a little mind boggling. You're gonna have to organize this into some kind of coherent position before this can continue.

I don't care. You can be Santa Claus for all I care.

I'm 65 and I personally went through the experience. I personally experienced neighborhoods blocking "undesirables" - - and real estate agencies bowing to the pressure of locals.

Then Fair Housing advocates (prior to the Fair Housing Act) - - - working through Real Estate agencies - - - using "surrogate" white couples to ensure house buys for blacks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can "mumble jumble" all you want. It is exactly the same thing as states - - by state marriage rights - - denying gay marriage.

It will not hold up.

I state Obama first president to declare support of Equal Marriage Rights.

You comeback with (in so many words) -- - how significant is that compared to a president that actually enacts Equal Marriage Rights.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
ya know what, I've never bothered looking into what communists do and don't believe because I wasn't really very interested,... from what I've seen, they appear to be MUCH better than capitalists, maybe we should look at them more closely. Is that what you were shooting for? If so, then WIN, if not, then EPIC FAIL!
Heck, just about anything would be better than this failing capitalism where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and anyone that's in between just pays for it all.

There is nothing wrong with Purist Communism (other then it requires full commitment and agreement). I can't see it working beyond a smaller group who has agreed to the terms.

However. Most people that throw Communism into a conversation - - - haven't a clue what they're talking about.

reply to post by Annee


Think about what you're saying. Don't you think there was SOMEONE prior to the civil rights act or the FHA or the ADA, etc, whose position was "well I'm personally against those kinds of discrimination but we shouldn't take federal action to remedy them"? Do we remember those people's positions as historic? No. And likewise obama's position will go down as one of those wishy washy politically motivated positions.

And btw, if it's relevant that you have "looked into" the law and that you are old. It's relevant that the person you're speaking to is actually knowledgable and not Santa clause