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.

 

The REALITY of Marriage Equality

page: 18
11
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not my idea, you can read about it in Holdren's book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. It's about how the elites can depopulate, and pushing the gay agenda was one of their concepts. And it got Holdren to czar.


I don't care whose idea it is. It is a stupid one. The idea of a "gay agenda" is just manufactured propaganda, and rather poor at that.




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have no problem with gay marriage, but there is most certainly a gay agenda, from my POV at least, which is why we had the White House all rainbowed out. And it's the #1 attack weapon of liberals and their divide and conquer strategy. Christians don't do themselves any favors though, I agree with that.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not my idea, you can read about it in Holdren's book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. It's about how the elites can depopulate, and pushing the gay agenda was one of their concepts. And it got Holdren to czar.


1. You do realize that "czar" is only a turn-of-phrase description, not an actual office, right?

2. Why don't you just explain to us, briefly, the basis for the proposition that you and Holdren share? What specifically is the "gay agenda" in this context and how does it enact population control, particularly given the fact that many people in same-sex relationships not only produce children, but also, care for the children of heterosexuals that either didn't want them or couldn't take care of them?

Looks to me like we're adding to the population, albeit a bit more slowly than some ...



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Science Czar is short for Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It's a nice gig.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not my idea, you can read about it in Holdren's book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. It's about how the elites can depopulate, and pushing the gay agenda was one of their concepts. And it got Holdren to czar.


Im sure you could also read about it in several books. It doesn't make it true. For that to happen, Being gay would have to be something you can be talked into. Could your be convinced to be gay? No, same as i couldn't be convinced to be straight. No 'supposed' Gay agenda will effect the population rates because there will be the exact same amount of homosexuals as there were before. Its not a fad, its a sexual identity.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have no problem with gay marriage, but there is most certainly a gay agenda, from my POV at least, which is why we had the White House all rainbowed out. And it's the #1 attack weapon of liberals and their divide and conquer strategy. Christians don't do themselves any favors though, I agree with that.


Well your POV is limited and needs to be expanded with more information then. It certainly ISN'T the number 1 attack weapon of liberals. That would be the race card. See you don't even know your own political rhetoric properly.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Science Czar is short for Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It's a nice gig.


Nice Google.

Now, what about the details of the Gay Agenda and how it serves the elites' plans for population control?

Surely you can explain it to us, since you were so quick to refer to it and promote the idea?

G'head.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

I agree. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is offended by someone elses opinion. But they lump me in with extremist bigots and homophobes for having a differing opinion. That was my original objection and still is. The fact that I disagree with gay marriage as a holy vow wasn't even the core of my original statement. It was that the OP lumped anyone who disagreed with gay marriage into one big category: bigots / homophobes. Don't call me bigot or homophobe because I simply disagree. It is possible, despite the opinions of those who choose to ignore the dictionary, to disagree with something and not enter into the realm of extreme behavior such as bigotry. It is also possible to disagree with something without being afraid of it. That was all I said initially. I just don't want to be lumped in with the extremists. I don't mind if someone disagrees with me. They have that right, just as I have the right to disagree with them. And neither of us deserves to be branded or suffer insults or name calling because of it.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

I would like to believe you, and I don't doubt your sincerity. Frankly it's not important to me to address the mere lukewarm anything or anyone, only the clearly problematic, militant BELIEF-based -- lacking ACTUAL, verifiable proof/truth -- dogma and violence. You definitely don't fall into that category -- or apparently, unless you're more hardcore than your writing indicates. However, bigotry can be more subtle, harder to detect than the overt-obvious displays. Bigotry is as it DOES, how it presents itself to others, NOT as it labels itself. The only ones who are able to accurately consider themselves free from bigotry -- or at least REASONABLY free -- are the ones who do not make statements to the same OR SIMILAR ENOUGH effect.

Your earlier statement that you allegedly support equal rights for homosexuals, yet deny marriage as an EQUAL right IS, as I previously pointed out, double-speak, contradictory. It simply comes across as prejudiced/bigoted regardless of your subjective opinion. Objectivity, truth most often has to come from outside the self. Your insistence concerning the "holy vow" of marriage is only a religious or religion-based BELIEF, not established fact/proof. If one generalizes an entire group of people as in any way lesser or less deserving than another group in ANY aspect, there needs to be scientific or otherwise verifiable truth to substantiate it. Or that's how it SHOULD be, and concerning REAL truth in the overall, macrocosmic sense. But that's another area of discussion...



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Lightworth

I wonder what would happen if I repeatedly published: "Christians are abnormal."

I mean, I don't have anything in general against individual Christians per se, just in general, it is my heart-felt belief that due to their strange beliefs in a god that "impregnated a young girl in order to give birth to himself only to be offered as a human sacrifice in order to address a list of sins that the god himself created ... and then be raised from the dead as a zombie" that I feel that I am perfectly justified in calling them ABNORMAL.

If I kept repeating that, particularly in the face of a Christian, who tries to tell me that they follow the positive teachings of Jesus like "love one another" and "judge not so that you won't be judged" and view Him much like they do Buddha or Lao-Tze?

Well, in short, I would be a bigot, not because I am wrong about the belief being more than a little crazy, but because I negatively portray an entire group of people and keep doing so.

In fact, I publicly own that I am bigoted towards bigots ... but at least I'm honest.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Excellent points and a very big LOL to the synopsis of "impregnated..." etc.! I could see where I might come across as bigoted toward Christians and other religious people across the board or as individuals, but that's not and never has been the case. I'm VERY strongly aware of the difference between that which is institutional or dominant in political power and influence, and the Golden Rule, individual morality and ethics.

ADD: I've long wondered if, out of the estimated 40,000 (I think) or so denominations or sects of Christianity, if there are any that entirely reject the notion of the blood "sacrifice" as the great lightning rod/credit card for anyone's sins. Are there any that assume absolutely 100% responsibility for one's life, actions without exception? If so, more power to those people.
edit on 9-7-2015 by Lightworth because: addition



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Lightworth

I see your point and I agree with you, except that the belief is faith based and there really is no proof. Hence the faith part of it.

My contention from the start is that there is a difference between a simple act of disagreement and the extremes of bigotry. That seems to get whitewashed every time and resolved into 'anyone who disagrees to any extent must be a bigot and a homophobe'.

If I were a bigot I would not tolerate gay marriage in any way. I would do everything in my power to prevent it. I would fight it tooth and nail because it is patently wrong. If I were a bigot. But I am not. I disagree with the holy vow aspect of marriage but I do not deny anyone the right to do it nor will I disrespect that marriage once it is done.

It seems people are not inclined to believe I can have my belief and still be tolerant because that denies them the justification to call me a bigot. I don't understand why it is so very important to people to believe they are being victimized by bigots. I would think it would be infinitely more desirable to believe the opposite.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Lightworth

LOL, I hear you.

We do use the term "Christian" awfully loosely and freely.

Oh, well, so do they.

I think a lot of times we are all so entrenched in our individual belief systems or individual reality tunnels (more appropriately, thanks RAW) that we really can't see the differences in what we do and say.

For example: "I find some of the beliefs and practices of Christianity to be abnormal."

and:

"Christians are abnormal." or "You're abnormal, Christian."

The first is a statement of perception or belief, the second is pretty much bigoted.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

We do use the term "Christian" awfully loosely and freely.



I think by this time posters should know which Christians we are talking about in these discussions.

IMO in discussions involving LGBTQ --- the "blanketing Christians" argument is just deflect.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I agree. The people taking offense to that word know DAMN well which Christians we are talking about. If they have such a problem with it, then maybe they should do what they demand of Muslims all the time and speak up to their intolerant brethren.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I hear you, but I've been doing a bit of soul-searching or self-review or whatever lately.

I can jump very quickly to actual bigotry toward Christians, sometimes only with a little prompting.

I'm working on that splinter in my eye, LOL.

But, I hear you, how many times have we see the construction: "How can you lump all Christians/Republicans/conservatives together like we're all the same??? I swear you liberals/progressives/leftists are just a blight on the land."

What is the emote for EXCRUCIATING IRONY again?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join