It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Hypocrisy of "Gay" "Athiests" or "alternative" lifestyles.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:07 AM

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I take it you're an American.

How long do you think your ideas/way-of-life have persisted in America?

The last time I checked America was at one time populated by a variety of indigenous peoples whom were uprooted, massacred and cheated from what was their land.

So are you a weed too?

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:27 AM
a reply to: txinfidel

Have you watched Expelled (No Intelligence Allowed)
It's a documentary.
Personally I don't believe in tolerance, equality, and unconditional love.
They are made-up constructs that have been programmed into the societal consciousness via the mainstream media.

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:27 AM
a reply to: NihilistSanta
Thanks for the thumbs up.
You address a lot of issues, and I'd be sitting here for hours going into the history of South Africa, and I'd also be going way off topic.
But I'll continue to post on the local situation when applicable.

I'd just shortly say that from 2006 we've had same-sex marriage equality in SA, and since then I sometimes feel a unified queer movement has been dissolving.

I don't know about what's going on in the US, but I hear so much of gays wanting "special rights", yet after all these years on ATS I still fail to see any example of "special" civil rights.
Yet, religious con-men can run all kinds of organizations based on a tax-exempt status.
Not to say all religion is a con, but it's outrageous that what could be a future Jim Jones could be demanding to teach kids about science, and his cult's view of a planet created for a constantly immediate apocalypse at the end of the narrative - how's that for demanding frightening "special rights"?

But for sure, any kind of liberation leads to factionalism of what that "freedom" should entail.
Just so we had the ANC who got their concept of a "people's war" from communist Vietnam, and their most brutal fight in South Africa was actually against rival black movements like Azapo or Inkatha.
The world may hear of their distinguished members in exile, but many of their grass-roots supporters were just common thugs.

The ANC didn't just march into Pretoria.
Their army (which had gulags like Quatro for its own members) was actually pretty inefficient.
In fact, South Africa was handed to them on a platter during a negotiated settlement, and at that point the ANC and the United Democratic Front had many white members too.
The Cold War had just ended, and many countries that suddenly celebrated Mandela in 1990 (like Britain and the US) had supported apartheid as Cold War allies, and the Anglo-American companies or fundamentalist preachers (like the late Jerry Falwell), that enabled apartheid, have never apologized or contributed to the victims.

Nevertheless, I think there's a segment of the white population that's still paranoid about a political collapse in which whites will be targeted.
The "Suidlanders", for example, are one of the biggest survivalist groups on earth, and they're constantly preparing for "Uhuru".
Many white farmers have been slaughtered in brutal attacks, and there's a sense that whites were placated into a false sense of security, and now the Marxists are doing the killing slowly, because in 1990 whites were still too powerful and militarized.
Without whites and their skills there have also been collapses in basic services, like water and electricity.
One cannot promise the electorate more service delivery and drive away the skilled population.

At a time when much of post-colonial Africa was imploding, South Africa still had hospitals, universities and a functional infrastructure.
Even then immigrants from other African countries were keen to work on SA mines and enter the country.
Before the People's War started in the late 1970s, South Africa virtually had full employment, and without disinvestment the majority of the populace weren't very motivated for revolution at all.

But ultimately most people want peace and reconciliation in a fair society.
Whites are actually a small minority of about 4 million people, out of a population of 50 million (the black population in the whole of British southern Africa in around 1900 was 5,4 million - while apartheid was wrong in many ways, it certainly wasn't a genocide).

What is more blatant is that certain things like police brutality, undemocratic tendencies and corruption today seem very similar to apartheid.
Recently some squatters were evicted, and the scenes were reminiscent of apartheid footage (except that the people doing the evicting were mostly black).
This leads me to think that the same powers behind apartheid are now behind the ANC.
The African National Congress and the pre-1994 National Party actually resemble each other in several uncomfortable respects.
Ordinary white people have very little to with it, and Pretoria alone now has over 70 white squatter camps.
The poor white problem is visible in South Africa (just Google it on YouTube).
We (whites in general) do not control South Africa, and whites have also suffered, especially as foot soldiers of the Cold War in Angola.
But just like gays, whites make a very convenient minority scapegoat for the corruption and failures of the current government and elites.

edit on 10-6-2014 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:37 AM
a reply to: txinfidel

Seems to me that "txinfidel" is one of those ATS members that starts controversial threads and then has no more input in the thread. Just another ATS member that loads the bullets for everyone else to fire. Perhaps one is building up stars and flags.

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:45 AM
a reply to: Margana

I wondered if maybe you had me confused with the original poster. Thanks for clarifying that for myself and the readers.

The main problem I see with the analogy I presented is the connotation of the words "weed" and "invasive species". I'm not trying to demonize weeds or new ideas, or say that people should kill weeds (or new ideas), I made a comparison with the conflict I see in the nature of the environment I actually live in.

My mother used to tell me that a weed was simply a plant that you didn't want in the garden. That weed wasn't evil, it just wasn't what you wanted in your particular flower plot. So, there are a lot of people that don't like new ideas growing in their culture, that's not me, just something that seems a part of this issue.

I'm not going to nit-pick here, but you did take many things I said out of context, so be it, I guess as well as I thought I chose my words, perhaps I should lay off any analogy in the future. But I do appreciate you clearing that up and will give some more thought about loaded words like "weed" or "invasive" out of respect to those who are sensitive and may not understand things the way I do.

(post by manna2 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:58 AM
a reply to: flammadraco

Fammadraco, I don't do video, but I am a Star Trek fan, could you give me a reminder about this scene with Piccard?

I seem to remember he had a "weed" story, was this the one?


ETA: Yep, I'm a weed too. Didn't you read my mini-rant in an earlier post here?

edit on 10-6-2014 by MichiganSwampBuck because: added last line

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 09:14 AM

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: flammadraco

Fammadraco, I don't do video, but I am a Star Trek fan, could you give me a reminder about this scene with Piccard?

I seem to remember he had a "weed" story, was this the one?


ETA: Yep, I'm a weed too. Didn't you read my mini-rant in an earlier post here?

Star Trek: The Next Generation (TV Series)
The First Duty (1992)

Capt. Picard: You could use a good herbicide instead of pulling the weeds with your bare hands.
Boothby: M-hm... And you could explore space on a holodeck instead of a starship.

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 09:16 AM
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I did see your wee rant at the start of the thread, made a comment and then saw your later responses. However I did like "seabhac-rua" response to your original post

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 10:07 AM

originally posted by: halfoldman

I don't know about what's going on in the US, but I hear so much of gays wanting "special rights", yet after all these years on ATS I still fail to see any example of "special" civil rights.

Gays/atheists are not getting or asking for "special" civil rights in the US. Just equal rights.

It is Christians who are losing special rights, and they're hopping mad about it, claiming persecution.

Fact is Christians have been the dominant controlling force in the US. That dominance is being chiseled away.

Not much different then "white" dominance.

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 10:17 AM
a reply to: halfoldman

Interesting information/viewpoint.

Thanks for sharing.

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 10:42 AM
I want to know how bad the situation of fundamentalist Christians are in US from homosexual perspective and if they are seen as the majority of Christians or Minority of Christians in US.

Do anyone who are homosexual/bisexual wanna give their opinion or do someone else know where I can find good polls on it?

From my personal point of view anyone who read Jesus and understand Jesus would never care to hate someone for a silly thing as having a different sexual symbiotic preference. It is the same hate as hating someone for another color of skin. This kind of hate spawns from the satanic side not from the divine.
edit on 10-6-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 10:56 AM
a reply to: LittleByLittle

Fundamentalist Christians are a minority in America, from my experience. That is unless you're in places like Colorado where those mega churches are quite popular. Then it increases some.

For the most part most Christians are kind of Laissez-faire Christians who don't mess with other people on a regular basis. Most don't attend church regularly. Many haven't even read the bible completely at some point in their lifetime. Most do not follow all the teachings of the bible(thankfully).

Like with anything, the extremists are the most damaging of any group and for some can leave much to be desired. The majority of people though are going to be fine and not badger or harass. That probably is true of any group.

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 10:59 AM
a reply to: Annee

I could argue the point but I don't want to divert the thread. The main thing to understand is that the people who lead any movements are generally going to be co-opted or killed off and their vision steered towards that which is best for the status quo (nwo). The only reason gay marriage and things like marijuana laws in the US are changing has been to divert from the wholesale plunder. The people in power don't care what any of us represent because we are all just pawns.

The universal WE get handed small victories while the bold strategic moves are playing out behind the smoke and mirrors. Gays are used as tools, Christians are used as tools, any cultural force is being used as a tool. We think we get change but instead its more of the same. That's kind of what I got from halfoldmans post in regards to SA.

You know you are no longer being persecuted when the worst offenses are people refusing to bake you a cake or you being turned down to dance half or fully naked in a parade. Be thankful you don't live in Uganda/Russia/Any middle eastern country etc etc.
This leads to special rights/privileged which is the wrong term and protected class seems more fitting really. You can tell because of how censored any criticism is in reference to homosexuality. Hate crimes/Speech are just ways of muzzling any debate while creating protected classes. This is completely intentional to create animosity. Anyone who criticizes homosexuality are equated with Nazis and suddenly want people to burn in death camps. Clearly an US vs THEM mentality has been created.

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 11:01 AM
Was thinking to create my own thread called “The Hypocrisy of " Anti –Gay Activists who turn out to be gay"

I was shocked to find that in the US the following 10 high profile “Anti Gay” activist actually both politicians and church leaders, ended up being gay themselves, kind of shows that most homophobes are probably closeted homosexuals.

1) Steve Wiles - North Carolina Republican Senate candidate Steve Wiles campaigned heavily on his anti-gay beliefs and his support of the state's same sex marriage ban. However, in May 2014, news broke that just over a decade ago, he worked as an openly gay drag queen

2) Caleb Douglas Hesse - First grade teacher and volunteer youth leader Caleb Douglas Hesse has been a longtime anti-gay activist and even donated to Prop 8 in California to ban gay marriage. In August 2012, he confessed to sexually abusing "numerous underage boys," usually during overnight trips with the Evangelical Free Church youth group in Yucca Valle

3) George Rekers - a man who helped start one of the most powerful anti-gay lobbying groups in the US during the 80s and has written published papers such as "Growing Up Straight, then was caught with a male hooker

4) Pastor Eddie Long - a Baptist and famed televangelist in his area. In 2004, he led a march to Dr. Martin Luther King's grave in the name of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. He is currently being sued by four young men (ages 21, 20, 23 and 22) for using his fame and influence to coerce them into sexual relationships.

5) Troy King - Known for his vocal opposition to gay rights and for his attempt to outlaw sex toys, King was caught by his wife while having sex with a local homecoming King from Troy University.

6) Richard Curtis - This Washington State Representative has an anti-gay rights voting record--he voted against domestic partnerships for gays and opposed a bill prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Oh really now? Well, it wasn't before long that Mr. Mega-Compensation resigned from the House due to reports of his sexual encounter with a male escort being made, you know, "public" and all.

7) Ted Haggard - Known as Pastor Ted to his congregation at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Ted Haggard was outed by prostitute, and professional masseur, Mike Jones in November 2006 for paying him to engage in sex with him for three years.

8) Glenn Murphy Jr. - Glenn Murphy Jr., former head of the Young Republicans and one of the (former) leading Republicans of Indiana, always advocated "straight" family values and straight forward sexual orientation views.
He was caught (finally, the second time he did it) performing fellatio on another Young Republican while that man slept, without that man's consent.

9) David Dreier - is a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives who has voted against gay marriage rights, gay legal rights and gay adoption rights and was part of an organization called "Californians for Bush" in 2004.
He's been accused of having sex with members of his staff and even paying his alleged boyfriend a high salary

10) Roy Ashburn - On March 3, 2010, this conservative California State Senator, who always votes against any gay-rights bills, should have just stayed in for the night, but then again, if he did, he wouldn't have accidentally outted himself in such a grand way. As the story goes, after leaving a gay bar with an unidentified man, Roy Ashburn was arrested for DUI.

This is now the main reason I no longer get a bee in my bonnet when I see threads such as these as I feel for my fellow homo’s who are still so closeted that their only release is to become homophobic!

Surprises me how many of these homophobes are republican or conservative, would love to be able to do the same list for all the ATS members that have such strong “Anti Gay” opinions on here

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 11:06 AM
a reply to: flammadraco

So you are saying don't trust homosexuals? I kid but your point can be construed a number of ways and it is clear what your opinion is of anyone who would criticize homosexuality. I just think it is a cop out and a generalization.

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 11:13 AM
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Not a cop out, just stating a fact, those who have no issues with their own sexuality don't seem to have issues with homosexuality. Those who protest to much though........

ETA. Don't trust homophobes is more to the point
edit on 10.6.2014 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 11:14 AM
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Not everything is NWO, and yes that would be derailing the thread.

Persecution of minorities is as old as man himself.

Only "real" enforced laws, desire, commitment, and means to have a voice will force change. And sadly, force is the only means to equal rights of a minority.

I'd say a Christian referring to "alternate lifestyle" is very clear in who believes they are the dominant hierarchy of how everyone else should live.

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 11:16 AM
a reply to: Annee

Equality by force? That is the new party slogan eh? Peace at gun point.

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 11:18 AM
a reply to: flammadraco

That is victim blaming.

I always get annoyed when people highlight that some of the homophobes turn out to be gay themselves.

Like saying "Ha! See look at this! The gays are to blame for homophobia, look at these examples of closet gays that hate themselves!"

Ignoring the rather obvious fact that these people were probably surrounded by very much straight and very much hateful people growing up.

While true they were closet cases, it ignores the greater question which is why someone would have that type of self-loathing to begin with. What type of environment or treatment did someone experience to act out in such a way against a part of themselves?

The environment that these individuals grew up and were surrounded by bred extreme self-loathing and shame. It is natural in the context of human psychology to lash out at that which has been the perceived cause of negative feelings. In the case of a homosexual growing up in such a negative environment they would perceive their being gay as the source of maltreatment(instead of blaming the obvious cause which is the people being assholes around them).

It's the same with sexism. Throughout history some of the worst haters of women have been the women themselves. Obviously if you are raised your whole life being told that this or that is bad about you(such as having a vagina) then you associate that aspect of yourself negatively. Instead of lashing out at those who are telling you that the aspect is bad and shameful, you lash out at the aspect.

This is even worst for homosexuals because unlike gender it can be a case where there is no one else around as a point of reference. With race you come home and your family is the same, even if society is being racist. With gender you can look around and easily see women who are great even though your family may be telling you that women are lesser than.

But with homosexuality there can be a deep rooted sense of loneliness that these people feel growing up. So when they are told that they are going to hell every day they internalize that information and begin to hate themselves. They become homophobic and lash out at everyone that has same sex attractions. They associate that part of themselves as being the cause of all the negative information being spouted at them. They try and do whatever they can to place as great a wedge between themselves and their homosexuality as they possible can. In that case they of course become crusaders against all that is gay. It is self-loathing brought on by hateful comments throughout their youth in regard to homosexuality.

That is all.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in