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

a reply to: zazzafrazz

If religion gets a forum, perhaps we can ask the owners to start a Gay Bashing forum, its become literally unbearable to read this rubbish lately. And I'm one of those members who can't stand when someone says "ATS has has gone downhill lately" but this gay bashing stuff is intolerable and I don't see what it has to do with Above Top secret. Make the forum, and out the haters or stop these repulsive hate threads.

Yeah that would be great huh? Nobody could be entitled to their own opinion unless they agreed with you.

Where do I sign up?

Still waiting for you to point a gun at my head.

a reply to: charles1952

You are quite right, but it really doesn't matter that you're right. Look at all the comments here that refuse to address your point. It makes me think of people who don't really want to take note of what you said and have a conversation.

I hope to Heaven that I am wrong, but I try to go with the evidence, and I've been given some new evidence on this issue. I really do hope that someone can show me that I'm wrong, not with name calling or dodging the issue, but with thoughtful, relevant information.

The new information was primarily three words: "We are enemies." That was like a cold shower, but it made things fit into place. This was never about "tolerance," or "acceptance," or even "equal rights." There was never any serious effort to persuade people to be brothers. They have declared war, and calling them hypocrites, even if it is true, will have absolutely no effect.

The goal, as I have seen presented in a number of places is to have people with( "alternative sexual proclivities?") declared a specially protected group. This would provide privileges not available to heterosexuals, in short winning a triumph over them.

Anything is legitimate to that group if it improves their chances to win their victory. Most people remember Branden Eich who was tossed out of his job as CEO of Mozilla after two weeks on the job. His offense was donating $1000 to Proposition 8 (for the wrong side). There wasn't any reference to it until 6 years later when his contribution was discovered. Interestingly enough, the donation was made at the very same time that Obama was delivering remarks supporting traditional marriage.

Yes well look no further than Donald Stirling. Now I don't agree with what the guy allegedly said. But he has a right to his opinion and definitely has a right to speak it. Nobody has a right to strip him of his wealth without a guilty conviction for a CRIME at the very least, but instead an outburst inside his own home.

Clear violation of the fourth amendment and the first. I don't agree with what he said, but I agree that he has a right to say it, unless we live in North Korea.

You can see the polarization in america like blood on a dog. A weakness. WE are welcoming all of our enemies to attack. The doors are open, there is a red carpet that says come on in, attack us.

Actually, not wasting my time. Deleted

originally posted by: txinfidel
a reply to: Annee

Reminds be of the fall of George Wallace.

The public has reached the tipping point of discrimination against LGBT.

The majority voice is being heard.

The LGBTQ umbrella? Lets break it down. I can tolerate gay and lesbians or bi's as long as they don't shove their gayness in my face. But as for T which also stands for transexual as well as transgendered, the transexual I can not stand and will not tolerate somebody who wants to mutilate their body to become the opposite sex and go in the opposite sex bathrooms and be totally creepy. NO I will not stand for that.

You do realize that straightness is shoved in their face everywhere, everyday, don't you?

I'm really tired of the "shove" argument. What do you mean? Do you mean they "act" gay? They don't "act" gay, they are gay.

If what they do is the same thing straights do, that is not shoving in your face. If gays walk down the street holding hands, laughing, hugging each other, maybe a peck on the cheek --- that is not shoving in your face. Because, those are the same every day behavior of straights.

Not all gays are the fem stereotype, but even they are probably just being normal for them. It's who they are, it's not an act.

Obnoxious behavior has nothing to do with sexual orientation, it's just obnoxious behavior.

I'm not even going to bother discussing Trans with you.

a reply to: txinfidel

'same opinion' ive managed to happily be on this board for years without insisting on the same opinion as me. When it comes to the dehumanising of Homosexuals, yeah it would be nice if we all thought that was wrong. *shrugs*

'gun to your head'...don't own one, never will

But go on with your fear mongering, I might set the homo gangs onto you, you know the ones that will cart people up and send them to death camps we been hearing about lately

originally posted by: txinfidel

Yes well look no further than Donald Stirling. Now I don't agree with what the guy allegedly said. But he has a right to his opinion and definitely has a right to speak it. Nobody has a right to strip him of his wealth without a guilty conviction for a CRIME at the very least, but instead an outburst inside his own home.

He certainly does have a right to his opinion. He also had signed a contract when he agreed to purchase his team. Within that contract were ground rules for appropriate behavior because the actions of a teams owner affect the entire team, and as a consequence the trickle down affects have fiscal repercussions for the team and league as a whole. If he couldn't handle his end, the league has its own version of an escape clause to deal with those who can't be bothered to honor their word let alone the contacts that bind that word.

And if you get right down to it, nobody is taking his wealth at all either. In fact, he's going to make a massive profit off of the sale of his team. He bought it for next to nothing when they couldn't have won a game if they were the only team on the court. They are now doing well, making money off of tickets and merchandise and the team is worth substantially more than it was when he acquired it.

Clear violation of the fourth amendment and the first. I don't agree with what he said, but I agree that he has a right to say it, unless we live in North Korea.

It's a violation of neither. You're confusing constitutional law with contract law. It's not about crime at all and that would be the only way constitutional law would apply. Neither of those amendments apply to this situation. The closest the 4th plays into it is if the woman who recorded the conversation Violated any wiretapping laws and then it would only apply to her. The first amendment doesn't play into this at all. It wasn't a free speech issue, it was a contractual violation spurned by his illfated choice in mistresses. The guy is a heaping mess of one bad choice piled on top of another.

While Stirling is entirely in his right to be a racist, if he is, or an anachronistic old man caught up in how it was acceptable to behave and speak about others, or whatever his rationale is, others also have the right to be equally appalled or disgusted with his actions and rhetoric and use their first amendment rights to say something about it.just as you are afforded the same opportunity to have and excessive your own opinions and rights. Even if this were a first amendment issue, just because you technically have the right to say just about anything you please, doesn't mean there won't or even shouldn't be consequences.

You can see the polarization in america like blood on a dog. A weakness. WE are welcoming all of our enemies to attack. The doors are open, there is a red carpet that says come on in, attack us.

I'm confused, since the topic is hypocritical gays, atheists and other people snuggled under the blanket statement of alternative lifestyles, are homosexuals and atheists our enemies and on the attack or is everyone just equally utilizing their rights to speak out about what they believe strongly in with no regard for who agrees or disagrees? Just a thought.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

yup...I can't top that

but I'll try pathetically

I love how the religious right cannot stand us LGBT folk "parading our views" yet it's perfectly fine for me to drive down a highway and see billboards erected to idolatry of their christian lord and their temples. Everywhere there are crosses hanging on necks and religious tattoos. But then as soon as the "gay agenda" fights for even the slightest bit of breathing room the christian right cries out that they are being stomped on and snuffed out.

You want hypocrisy OP? Try being gay and having people tell you it is perfectly ok for the government to say I can't marry a guy because it's against the religious institution all the while the right supposedly supports the very document that promised to deliver us from religious tyranny

Look OP I am not saying my beloved Socialist tendencies and my love for the far left are perfect. We clearly aren't. But don't go pretend we are trying to take over the world when all we are seeking is equality.

Hell yes there are militant atheists and LGBT folks but I have two things to say to that

1. Shame on them

2. I kind of understand when you come from a long history of being oppressed that sometimes you have to fight back harder JUST to get to an even keel

anywho...that's my opinion

one last thing

If christianity ever does somehow become the minority...I don't wanna hear a thing about how they are oppressed because that's the same crap christians get mad at us for. Maybe if christians treated the LGBT as people we wouldn't have to fight. And if you have an atheist militant in front of you, smile and walk away. Before I turned Pagan I was pretty sure I remember in VBS learning that ours is not to judge...only god's

just a thought

Atheists need God to be against it/Him, they can't exist without. To me there will always be only one definition of love and that doesn't involve same genders, agree to disagree and leave it at that.

originally posted by: johnnyjoe1979
Atheists need God to be against it/Him, they can't exist without. To me there will always be only one definition of love and that doesn't involve same genders, agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Atheism is not anti God.

I'd first have to believe a God exists to be against it.

Lack of believe does not include a god.

originally posted by: johnnyjoe1979
Atheists need God to be against it/Him, they can't exist without.

You can't be against something that you don't believe in. True story. It's like saying that you hate the tooth fairy, the only people who will be affected are those who believe in the tooth fairy and the entirety of that demographic is under the age of 10.

To me there will always be only one definition of love and that doesn't involve same genders, agree to disagree and leave it at that.

So you don't have any feelings of love for your father? Brothers? Male friends? Does that mean you have been in love with every person of the opposite gender that you have had intimate relations with? Seems like a very narrow definition of love to me and it sounds like a terribly sad way to live when you see the entirety of existence through such a tiny little window to the outside.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: johnnyjoe1979
Atheists need God to be against it/Him, they can't exist without.

You can't be against something that you don't believe in. True story. It's like saying that you hate the tooth fairy, the only people who will be affected are those who believe in the tooth fairy and the entirety of that demographic is under the age of 10.

True, it's without God as poster above wrote. But then one still defines once's stance in life as without God, instead of a complete absence.

To me there will always be only one definition of love and that doesn't involve same genders, agree to disagree and leave it at that.

So you don't have any feelings of love for your father? Brothers? Male friends? Does that mean you have been in love with every person of the opposite gender that you have had intimate relations with? Seems like a very narrow definition of love to me and it sounds like a terribly sad way to live when you see the entirety of existence through such a tiny little window to the outside.

No I can like people, but there's no love involved. I understand it must be different. When I see ads using 'love' it's sad but also funny, people making out with hamburgers, cars, etc., I know it's never meant that way but then why use the word. To me it has a different meaning and only applies to couples and it's there to signal two people can mate with eachother. I also don't define myself or any part of me with a sexual preference as I believe it's (spiritually) immature.

originally posted by: johnnyjoe1979


True, it's without God as poster above wrote. But then one still defines once's stance in life as without God, instead of a complete absence.

No, that's how you are defining me and others who don't have a belief in the Judeo-Christian deity. I define myself by my actions, how I treat others, what I teach my children about tolerance and respect for others n matter hw different fr you they may be. When I read statements like yours, it gives the appearance of the implication that
Without your specific brand of god, that we can't be good or loving Pete which is an ignorant and ludicrous notion.

No I can like people, but there's no love involved.

So you don't love your family? Interesting.

I understand it must be different. When I see ads using 'love' it's sad but also funny, people making out with hamburgers, cars, etc., I know it's never meant that way but then why use the word.

To me it has a different meaning and only applies to couples and it's there to signal two people can mate with eachother. I

And herein lies the problem, you're judging (and justifying) how other people live their lives, which is entirely contradictory to Christ's teachings, based on your own narrow view of what love should be. The qualifier of "To me..." Is pretty indicative that Instead of understanding love In all its myriad glories you're simply opting to dehumanize a segment of society that doesn't live within your personal standards. If god is so damned perfect then what could possibly be wrong with all of the people in the world who were born perfect under your god, at least until they reach adolescence and are ripe for disparagement. If I'm wrong, I do apologize, but its certainly the impression that I've been left with.

originally posted by: johnnyjoe1979

True, it's without God as poster above wrote. But then one still defines once's stance in life as without God, instead of a complete absence.

You are reaching. Without god only comes into play when the question is about god.

Do you seriously think I go about my life thinking I'm without god?

God is only an issue by the actions of god believers. God alone is absence.