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.

 

Society is forced to be accepting of gays & transgenders.

page: 16
74
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: centrifugal

Then according to this logic gays should be left free to oppress non gays. Don't you think?


You see libertarianism works if your right doesn't impede the rights of another.


Oppression of all forms is always impeding the rights of someone


True libertarianism should be against all forms of oppression. If people can be selective of who deserves freedom or not ot defeats the whole point.

I would never have imagined reading from a libertarian that oppression can be acceptable




posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SisterDelirium


what you're saying basically is you should be allowed your opinion but i'm not allowed to disagree with it?

you are free to disagree with the lgbt lifestyle that's fine BUT i'm also free to think you're backward for it - freedom of opinion for all! if you feel shame - that's all on you, i'm allowed my opinion.

and, all those saying they're being forced - what the hell, exaggerate much?? ugh, some of you are such pansies. like others here posted i imagine that's what the bigots said during the civil rights movement.







edit on 23-6-2016 by knoxie because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-6-2016 by knoxie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: knoxie

YES!!!


You are allowed to be as hateful and ignorant as you want



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: centrifugal
One theory I've heard before is that it is a biological response to overpopulation. Basically that we are programmed to stop reproducing when populations get out of control. I don't necessarily know this to be true, but it would explain how it could be a natural occurrence and becoming more common.


That would be a streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch.

Whereas the media indoctrination encouraging it to hinder "over-population" would be about 1,000 times more realistic.
edit on 23-6-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: nOraKat
On thing I can say for sure is that in the younger generations - 20's, and 30's, I meet much more gay people than I used to.

If being gay were purely biological, you would think that the ratio would stay the same as in the past.


Maybe you should read this thread and the info within it.

Xenoestrogens: Foreign Endocrine Disruptors Detrimental Effects on Health and Human Reproduction.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

There is a HUGE difference between having an opinion against something and being an activist, who enacts their opinion in some way.

Don't argue semantics, makes you look like its all you got



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
...
and, all those saying they're being forced - what the hell, exaggerate much?? ugh, some of you are such pansies. like others here posted i imagine that's what the bigots said during the civil rights movement.


No exaggerations. I wonder what happened to "Separation of church and State" dogma that the left loves to use "sometimes". It seems the left only want religion out of the State when it suits their agenda, but when the State imposes the way of life of the left on religious institutions the left is all for it.

There is a big difference between "asking" for your view/way of life to be respected and another entirely different thing is to impose the will of the few on everyone else...

How would you like it if the State suddenly decided to impose the will of the church and forced you all to follow the old traditions?...

As for the "bigots during the civil rights movement"... It was democrats who were the bigots and Republicans/conservatives were the ones passing, and trying to pass civil right acts since the 17 century.

What is happening these days is not about rights anymore, you still don't understand you are being used.

Why is it that the Obama administration wants to bring into the U.S. more and more Muslim immigrants from areas of the world where gays, lesbians, bysexuals etc are violently attacked, and even murdered? Why is he also passing laws forcing everyone in society not to "accept", but rather to forcefully embrace the Transgender way of life and forcefully implement it in millennia old traditions and religious institutions?

The Obama administration is setting a powder keg. Not all Muslims are bad people, but just look at what they do to the LGBT community in those areas from where they are being brought into the U.S. and Europe.

The Obama administration is not the only one doing this, other world leaders in many European nations are doing the same. It's as if they want chaos in their countries.

Let me give you an example...


LGBT rights in Syria

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) persons in Syria face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is illegal in Syria.

Since the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, there have been reports of gay Syrians being blackmailed, tortured and killed in areas controlled by Islamist rebels.
...

en.wikipedia.org...


LGBT rights in Iraq

Same-sex sexual relationships have been decriminalized but are still considered taboo by the majority of the population in Iraq. Many LGBT people in the country suffer from discrimination, abuse, honor killings, and murder. Uniformed Iraqi police officers have carried out lethal attacks on homosexual people.[3] The government of the Netherlands declared in 2012 that no place in Iraq was safe for LGBT persons.[4] It has been reported that the Iraqi government and militia are conspiring to exterminate LGBT people.[5][6][7] The United States Department of State in 2009 said, "We absolutely condemn acts of violence and human rights violations committed against individuals in Iraq because of their sexual orientation or gender identity."

en.wikipedia.org...

Just try to inform yourself if you don't believe me and don't even want to believe the links from the left wing source wikipedia.


edit on 23-6-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
doesn't everyone get it? You're not allowed a straight opinion.
If you're a hetero and make the mistake of 'misgendering'
someone, that's a quarter of a million dollar fine in Ny. Nope,
no pressure or goverment intrusion in this. I have my own opinions.

According to the vast majority of this thread, if I don't STFU
and accept whatever narrative i'm fed, then you're a bigotted
nazi and haven't done enough for the "community". But there's
no pressurising of course, you're just only allowed to have
an opinion if a family member is gay or have just been cottaging.

The people in this thread that aggressively tell other people
to have no thoughts but they deem unacceptable, is causing
a greater issue than it ever was before.

This is why I just blank out on threads I want to participate in,
someone declares moral authority over you then expects you
to adhere to their moral judgement for the conversation to continue,
by responding i'm giving you moral authority I don't feel you have over
me. And how dare people assume that above me?

It's call us men/women/whatever I feel like today, or you will be ousted from your job
and hated in public for your own opinion.

-my opinion, it's just that, I have feelz too, this is what my feelz tell me-
I have pee shyness, I don't want the men's room to turn into a LGBTQIA+
parade. I avoid public ameneties as much as I can anyway, I just don't want
a genderqueer in a renaissance dress living his dream in the pee pot next to me.
No, it's not hatred, i've been an accepting, contributing, tax paying member
of society for a long while. (members that are claiming that if you're not
lgbt you should STFU should be called on for outting people, how dare you
ask to know where I rank on that spectrum for my opinion to be validated.)
Is this where we've reached? You have to out someone for them to have
a valid opinion. When i'm forced into public, can people please respect me
enough to give me a comfortable place to pee. It's not that hard, a porcelain bowl,
no wayward glances , and if i'm very fortunate that day some dividers. I don't
want to play politics when I just need to wee



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: DelegateZero88

Hey, I have a solution for you...

If you have irrational fears of an LGBT parade in the public bathroom, then just don't use public restrooms


they are there for the public anyway, not to make you feel comfortable at home bc of your pee shyness.


edit on 23-6-2016 by veracity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: SisterDelirium


what you're saying basically is you should be allowed your opinion but i'm not allowed to disagree with it?

you are free to disagree with the lgbt lifestyle that's fine BUT i'm also free to think you're backward for it - freedom of opinion for all! if you feel shame - that's all on you, i'm allowed my opinion.

and, all those saying they're being forced - what the hell, exaggerate much?? ugh, some of you are such pansies. like others here posted i imagine that's what the bigots said during the civil rights movement.





No, we should all be free to disagree with each other, but do so in a civil manner. Your response illustrates the lack of civility surrounding the topic very nicely.

Exerting social pressure and vilifying people for simply not endorsing a certain mode of living...how is that a good thing? Instead of anti-bullying campaigns perhaps we should have campaigns to support the "right kind of bullying". In other words, it's okay to bully others, as long as it's for a good cause.

"I don't agree" IS NOT equal to "I hate you"

As for the LGBTQ, etc. crowd, I don't think, as individuals, people within the group are somehow less valuable than others. Individuals always possess unique gifts and personalities. Sexuality is only one aspect of a human person. It would be very limiting to think that people who engage in a sexual lifestyle that doesn't agree with my personal beliefs are somehow less valuable as a result. Therefore, this is NOT what I am saying when I say I don't agree with a certain brand of sexual conduct. The people are valuable and should be treated with every bit of dignity due to them as fellow humans.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I don't think people who skip meat in their diets are idiots. Yoga isn't part of my health regimen or part of my spiritual life, but I don't think people who participate in it are somehow deficient. The same thing goes for homosexuality, atheism, etc. Individuals are unique, special, valuable and deserving of their chance to figure out what it is to be alive as much as I am.

I find the whole mood of this period in history absurd. No two people are going to agree on everything all the time. That's what I find so refreshing about the Libertarian view of embracing freedom for all. The government should be out of the sexuality game with marriage, etc. period. Governments can work with legally binding contracts between adults, yes, but out of the "marriage" game. That way, all religious and non-religious views can exist without anyone being obligated to do something contrary to their beliefs. Gay marriage? Polyandry? Polygamy? Got a contract? Ok. Settled.

No doubt lots of the people posting here have family members with whom they disagree--does this mean they love those family members less? Hopefully not.

That's the way I see other people--as extended human family. The ones whose ideas I agree with and the ones I don't.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: SisterDelirium


maybe you can explain how my post is hateful?

i have family members, in laws, who feel the same way as you i imagine. i think they're behind the times, too, doesn't mean i hate them. geesh. if i disagree, i'm hateful. got it!



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I genuinely don't care if somebody is gay or straight or anywhere in between. It should be legal to be married etc and if you don't like it then don't go to a same sex marriage, I do believe each individual minister / church should be able to decide whether they want to conduct the service. It would be equally as unfair to force a minister or church that didn't believe in same sex marriage to conduct a service like this.

It should be common sense, your rights and freedoms should end where they encroach on somebody elses.

Skywarp



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: knoxie

I believe you should always have a choice. If you own a bakery but do not want to serve blacks / gays / trans for ex.

then you have the choice to not own a public bakery :O)

Life is so wonderful and simple



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: SisterDelirium


maybe you can explain how my post is hateful?

i have family members, in laws, who feel the same way as you i imagine. i think they're behind the times, too, doesn't mean i hate them. geesh. if i disagree, i'm hateful. got it!




I didn't say you were hateful. If anything I heavily suggested you were uncivil.




you are free to disagree with the lgbt lifestyle that's fine BUT i'm also free to think you're backward for it - freedom of opinion for all! if you feel shame - that's all on you, i'm allowed my opinion. and, all those saying they're being forced - what the hell, exaggerate much?? ugh, some of you are such pansies
. like others here posted i imagine that's what the bigots said during the civil rights movement.


I've added bold to the text that illustrates my point.

1) While I have not said anyone holding a view contrary to my own is somehow a bad person or somehow fundamentally lacking, you jumped right to calling me/people like me "backward". I assume this to mean that as a person, I've made less than normal progress, somehow, by not endorsing (note, not accepting, because I've already stated that I accept people as people) a particular set of sexual preferences. It is possible to disagree with another person without this kind of language entering into the conversation.

2) Anyone who doesn't like being called "hateful" for holding a contrary opinion is not only hateful but also a pansy. Well, that's not exactly the kind of language that inspires better relationships between opposing groups, is it?

3) Comparing people who are okay with everyone having freedom, but aren't huge fans of certain sexual interests, to the same people who caused the National Guard to come out just so a little girl could get to school in one piece.... that's not offensive, right?

The point being: You can't have a civil discussion on the topic with people anymore. The whole discussion tends to devolve into name-calling, shaming, insulting, etc. And, yes, that's irritating and/or frustrating for a lot of people.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: knoxie

I believe you should always have a choice. If you own a bakery but do not want to serve blacks / gays / trans for ex.

then you have the choice to not own a public bakery :O)

Life is so wonderful and simple



You also have the choice as a baker to mind your own business and to not bother your customers by asking them their sexual preferences. Everyone is happy, he can claim ignorance, not losing his face in front of his bigot friends, and the gay person can buy a delicious cake



But seriously, this baker example is terrible because it basically says that it's OK to write "We don't serve Jews/blacks" on the front of your store. Nope. It's not OK and if you disagree then accept to face the consequences.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: SpaceGoatFart

sorry this is over your head but ...

Of course you do not ask "are you straight or gay?"

What happens is a gay couple comes in there excited to get married, holding hands and the baker says "NOPE" then hides behind the bible (which we all know that is not what Jesus would do).

That is bigotry and discrimination, what makes it even worse?....is they blame it on their religion.




edit on 23-6-2016 by veracity because: spacegoatfart...nice screename btw



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: SpaceGoatFart

sorry this is over your head but ...




I was just being facetious. I fully agree with everything you posted
And I also hate it when they use their religion as an excuse because it's only their personal interpretation that is being criticized.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: SpaceGoatFart


oh, lol, I thought you were one of the cool ones



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Here's my thought again, going back to, I believe, my first post. Why would anyone be telling a person that they either feel the same about the gay issue as is currently socially acceptable or they are a bad person in the first place?

Is that person running around saying things? Judging? Shouting from the rooftops? Why be discussing or commenting this in public or with strangers you don't know or trust and putting yourself in the position where you get the bad-person rep?

And if you do discuss or comment in public like this? Be prepared for what you get back.
edit on 6/23/2016 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

That crossed my mind too, are these people upset that they cannot go up to a gay couple holding hands and whisper in their ears..."you are disgusting and I don't agree with you"

???

Is that what you want? to be a jerk?



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join