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.

 

Texas Restaurant Bans Gay Couple Because ‘We Do Not Like Fags’

page: 29
14
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

They don't simply "find out". It is estimated that more than 75% of homosexual men were sexually abused by men as children. When there are recruitment efforts in the schools, that contributes as well.


You need to start providing links for your claims.

I know in past threads you've used both outdated and discredited sources.


Do the research. I won't post links for you because no matter the source, you will claim it isn't valid. Not bothering.

The data is online, and I am certain you know how to do a simple search.




posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
N/m
edit on 4-6-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

BTW I am fully aware of the discovery of a gene for left handedness. It comes from an Oxford study involving a team of researchers. However, a lot more research is required.

Isn't it interesting that you can provide a plethora of links for that.

A lot is also known about sexual orientation. Just because researchers haven't pinpointed one cause, doesn't mean they don't have a lot of data.



. . . a genetic link has long been considered the most likely cause of left-handedness yet a specific gene has until now remained elusive. This is the first potential genetic influence on human handedness to be identified, and the first putative genetic effect on variability in human brain asymmetry. LRRTM1 is a candidate gene for involvement in several common neurodevelopmental disorders, and may have played a role in human cognitive and behavioral evolution. www.anythinglefthanded.co.uk...



edit on 4-6-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Dear Annee,

Just a freiendly suggestion, but may I ask you to think again about your criticism of the Regnerus study? It really hasn't been "debunked."

First, sociology studies, compared to studies in chemistry or physics, are always a little looser because of the human factor in the subject being studied. There are flaws in his study, but they are flaws he has pointed out within the study itself, saying he was limited by circumstances from getting the sample he really wanted. In spite of that, his data has been seen as an incredible improvement. But allow me to quote more on the subject from a letter written by 18 sociologists.


This is why sociology professor Paul Amato, chair of the Family section of the American Sociological Association and president-elect of the National Council on Family Relations, wrote that the Regnerus study was “better situated than virtually all previous studies to detect differences between these [different family] groups in the population. . . .

We are disappointed that many media outlets have not done their due diligence in investigating the scientific validity of prior studies, and acknowledging the superiority of Regnerus’s sample to most previous research.

What they are pointing out here, is that previous studies on children, with far inferior data and sampling techniques have been given a pass. It makes me wonder if the objection to Regnerus is more political correctness, that the actual study. And, finally, for this post, is another portion of the letter:

another study, recently published in the Journal of Marriage and Family comes to conclusions that parallel those of Regnerus’s study. This study finds that “children in same-sex parent families scored lower than their peers in married, 2-biological parent households” on two academic outcomes, and that these baseline differences can probably be attributed in part to higher levels of family instability in same-sex families, compared to intact, biological married families. This study was also based on a large, nationally representative, and random survey of school-age children; moreover, the same-sex parents in this study lived together. The parallels between the findings in this study and Regnerus’s study call into question the New Republic’s claim that the Regnerus study “gets everything wrong.”


The study was peer-reviewed, then because of the uproar at the results, was re-investigated by the University. There was found to be no scholarly misconduct. He was found guilty of publishing a study which offended some people.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:35 AM
link   
N/m
edit on 4-6-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952




Amato was arguably the most prominent sociologist involved in scandal: He is the President Elect of the National Council on Family Relations, the leading professional association for family scholars; he has been chair of the Family Section of the American Sociological Association; and he has a named chair at Penn State University, where he is a Distinguished Professor. We know from his own commentary on the study in Social Science Research that Amato was a paid consultant to Regnerus (confirmed by UT-released documents). In that commentary, he cautioned that Regnerus’s results shouldn’t be used to undermine gay and lesbian civil rights, but he also lent legitimacy to the study and did not criticize its obvious flaws. I have seen the emails between Amato and Mark Regnerus that Scott Rose writes about here, which were obtained through public records document requests. familyinequality.wordpress.com...



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   
I think I'm going to leave it to everyone else to reply to the hateful members in this thread - it's too negative and draining.

I hope they know they will be called to account for the negativity once day.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: kaylaluv

Your use of the 14th is not valid in this.

First, the Constitution states nothing in regards to marriage.

There is no "right" to marry someone. Marriage was a religious standing.

If the constitution does not speak about marriage, then the entire matter is open to debate and invalidates the idea that gay marriage is an ''equal rights'' issue. Of course, the media, the gay movement and its backers will continue to use emotional arguments and name calling as opposed to objectivity and reason.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: kaylaluv

Your use of the 14th is not valid in this.

First, the Constitution states nothing in regards to marriage.

There is no "right" to marry someone. Marriage was a religious standing.

If the constitution does not speak about marriage, then the entire matter is open to debate and invalidates the idea that gay marriage is an ''equal rights'' issue. Of course, the media, the gay movement and its backers will continue to use emotional arguments and name calling as opposed to objectivity and reason.


There are lots of privileges not specifically mentioned in the Constitution - marriage licenses weren't even available to anyone at the time the Constitution was written. It doesn't matter -- the Constitution DOES say that a state doesn't have the right to make laws abridging a citizen's privileges. The founders were vague on purpose, because they didn't know what privileges would be available in our country's future.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   


I didn't say anything about gay people getting married. I asked you ..... should humans all have equal rights?
and you need to tell me ''equal rights'' according to who or what...and if their definition included the ''equal rights'' of gays to get ''married''.
edit on 4-6-2014 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
you need to tell me ''equal rights'' according to who or what..

I ALREADY DID. Pages ago. Read the freak'n thread. WHAT - the basic dictionary definition that every English speaking person uses to define a word. Basic stuff. HERE

EQUAL. A very simple word. My daughter had it as a third grade spelling word.
Synonyms - unbiased, impartial, nonpartisan, fair, just, equitable

Definition of Equal

adjective
1. being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value. "add equal amounts of water and flour"
synonyms: identical, uniform, alike, like, the same, equivalent; More
antonyms: different, more than, less than
(of people) having the same status, rights, or opportunities.

uniform in application or effect; without discrimination on any grounds.
"a dedicated campaigner for equal rights"
synonyms: unbiased, impartial, nonpartisan, fair, just, equitable;
antonyms: discriminatory

evenly or fairly balanced. "it was hardly an equal contest"
synonyms: evenly matched, even, balanced, level; More
antonyms: uneven

2. having the ability or resources to meet (a challenge). "the players proved equal to the task"
synonyms: capable of, fit for, up to, good enough for, strong enough for;
noun: equal; plural noun: equals

1. a person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality.
"we all treat each other as equals"
synonyms: equivalent, peer, fellow, coequal, like;


.and if their definition included the ''equal rights'' of gays to get ''married''.

1 - I NEVER SAID GAY MARRIAGE. I SAID EQUAL RIGHTS.
2 - ALREADY DID. Pages ago. HERE

For those that can't figure out what the word 'equal' means ... here is a statement from the United Nations on how 'equal rights' is APPLIED to humans.

Declaration of Human Rights - United Nations General Assembly December 10 1948
Some excerpts -

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.



Answer the simple YES or NO question. Should all humans have equal rights??? You already made the statement that you think people have to 'earn' rights. Earn according to whose definition ... the religion of Islam?? Answer the questions.
edit on 6/4/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes


Well, no "hopes", other than that people could be helped. I believe a lot of the emotional issues many homosexuals have are a part of the cause, and could be alleviated if that could be. I want help for that the same as for any other problem.


Define helped. The main problem gay people suffer is depression and anxiety which is caused by social rejection. Being gay in itself is not a terrible thing that causes immense suffering, it's the lack of support from immediate family and greater society that causes problems.



When you told your mother you were "gay", did she think that was what she'd sensed, at the time you told her?


No, she cried and told me that it was the devil making 'this' happen and that we had to fight it.

It was after speaking to people from the church about it she recalled her instinct and admitted that she had sensed I was 'different' when she first held me. Those are her words, not mine just to clarify.



Do you remember when you first started having any sexual interest at all?


Definitely. My first ever crush was on a boy in my class at school. I was about 12 at the time. I can honestly hand on heart say that there has never ever been any confusion with who I am attracted to gender wise.

Hand on heart honesty, I've never felt the slightest bit attracted to females. I've had girls try to hit on me and kiss me etc and it just felt weird and creepy. Physical and emotional contact with another (gay obviously) male on the other hand feels natural and right for me. It always has.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   

@flyersfan.... here is a statement from the United Nations on how 'equal rights' is APPLIED to humans.

Declaration of Human Rights - United Nations General Assembly December 10 1948
Some excerpts -
Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
YOUR source cites ''race, nationality and religion'' as limitations, NOT sexual orientation. Thus ''equal rights'' as far as marriage is concerned...does not extend to include those with strange sexual orientations. Next.

edit on 4-6-2014 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
''equal rights'' does not extend to include those with strange sexual orientations.


'Strange sexual orientation' .... yeah, right. I could make a few comments about 'strange religious orientations' and state that those people shouldn't have equal rights too. Wonder what your reaction to that would be .. how you'd feel about that.

So your bottom line ... equality means - unbiased, impartial, nonpartisan, fair, just, equitable. You do not believe in equality for all humans. You've been outed with your statement that equality has to be 'earned'. Just say the bigoted words clearly for a change ... "I, skorpion, do not believe in equal right for all humans. I believe laws should be biased and unfair and unjust ... and they should be based on the Islamic notions of right and wrong".



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan
you posted UN literature and we see that does not include sexual orientation as a limitation. From YOUR OWN source, we see that ''equal rights'' as far as marriage is concerned does not extend to homosexuals who want to ''marry''.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
you posted UN literature and we see that does not include sexual orientation as a limitation. From YOUR OWN source, we see that ''equal rights'' as far as marriage is concerned does not extend to homosexuals who want to ''marry''.


My god ... are you still really harping on 'gay marriage'. For the tenth time - I NEVER SAID ANYTHING about gay marriage. We are discussing equal rights for all humans.

YOU said you don't know what the word 'equal' means. So I posted the information showing the dictionary definition - ... unbiased, impartial, nonpartisan, fair, just, equitable.

YOU said you don't know what the word 'equal' means. So I posted some information showing an APPLICATION.

Equal rights ... laws and rights that are unbiased, impartial, nonpartisan, fair, just, equitable.

yes or no? SIMPLE QUESTION ... state very clearly that you are for laws that are unbiased, impartial, nonpartisan, fair, just and equitable. Or that you are against laws being unbiased, nonpartisan, fair, just and equitable.

Pick one or the other. Answer a simple yes or no question for once.

So far you have hinted at a big fat 'NO EQUAL RIGHTS' ... by your statements about equality somehow having to be 'earned' and by your statement of this - ''equal rights'' does not extend to include those with strange sexual orientations."

Just answer the simple question directly .... state clearly 'no equal rights'. Stop deflecting.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
you posted UN literature and we see that does not include sexual orientation as a limitation. From YOUR OWN source, we see that ''equal rights'' as far as marriage is concerned does not extend to homosexuals who want to ''marry''.




YOU said you don't know what the word 'equal' means
did I say I dont know what the word ''equal'' means? Please link us to the exact post. refresh my memory . Or I will report your post.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

No one ever asks or questions why states were given the right to Marriage laws. I personally find that interesting.

Au contraire.
I question this all the time. Since marriage is a religious action, the govt really has no say in it. A civil union is something that the govt can control.


originally posted by: Annee
State Marriage laws are definitely one of those things some love to bring up in this type discussion.

It is just another way for the Govt to control people and tax them.
It is absurd to think that I must pay a Govt money to get a license to marry.


originally posted by: Annee
The state rights of marriage was purely discriminatory to begin with. It gave communities the right to pick and choose who they wanted to live in their little social structure, and the right to exclude those they didn't.

Regardless if you think it is discrimination, it is left up to the State to decide this, as it is not defined by the Constitution, and is not regulated by the Federal Govt.


originally posted by: Annee
However, Federal laws against discrimination trump all state laws. That's where the Constitution comes in (14th amendment).

No, no it doesn't. There is no right to marry. Just as driving is a privilege, marriage has been deemed a privilege.
If this is discrimination, then it is discrimination to regulate driving for someone that has poor eyesight.


originally posted by: Annee
While states will still have the right of Marriage laws, such as age, blood tests, etc -- they will not be able to deny a couple from getting married because of who they are.

So, in the opening, you state Marriage laws are basically wrong, yet you state here to be fine with the State requiring certain things related to marriage. It is either discriminatory, or it isn't.


originally posted by: Annee
Once LGBT are included as a Federally protected minority, which they will be, people like Big Earl will have no legal standing in actions against his view of Men not acting as Men. Or a personal view of illicit behavior -- unless that view is consistent across the board of all his customers.


A protected minority???? WOW. So a special class of citizen. And you wonder why people rail against this crap.
And I do love the idea of the thought and feelings police. Can't offend anyone or tell anyone "no". Or voice your opinion.

What a great LGBT tolerant world we look forward to living in.

If you don't see the absolute hypocrisy in your statement, there is no hope for you in this matter.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: macman

It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to allow a state to remove privileges from one group, while allowing those same privileges to another. This is the meaning of discrimination. Yes, privileges can be taken away, but if you are going to remove privileges, then remove them from all citizens. If you are going to allow privileges, then allow them to all citizens. Otherwise, you have discrimination.






The Constitution does not grant the right or the privilege to marry. It is therefore left up the the State to decide. This is very clearly defined.


It doesn't have to specify marriage -- it deals with any and all privileges, generally speaking.


It doesn't have to specify?????

This truly is mind boggling.

So, how can a state restrict someone with poor eyesight from driving?
It isn't implied nor addressed in the Constitution, and according to you, doesn't need to be specifically addressed.


Because driving with poor eyesight can hurt or kill others - the reason protects the general public. Now you are talking about the public's right to life, which IS specifically addressed in the Constitution. Not allowing two gays to marry each other because being gay is "icky" is simply discrimination.


So, your okay with discrimination so long as you believe it is for safety.

Care to pull up CDC reports of homosexual behaviors in conjunction with STDs and the public health??? If you want to go the route of "safety" I am all for going this way.

You are fine with certain things being controlled, so long as it suites your lifestyle.

You have blindly accepted that the privilege to drive, same as the privilege to marry, is okay to have restrictions.

Unbelievable.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: macman
It doesn't have to specify?????

This truly is mind boggling.


That's right. It doesn't have to specify. Can you show me where the Constitution specifies our right to vote? No, you cannot. Because the Constitution does not grant us the right to vote.



And the topic is marriage. Not voting rights.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join