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.

 

Hold on a minute - Were conservatives right, about gay rights?

page: 13
37
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: silo13

originally posted by: Liquesence

a reply to: Liquesence, Deaf Alien

You're mixing apples and oranges.


In the larger context, nope.

People of African decent are a race.

Homosexuals are not.

peace

Great deduction you got there Sherlock.




posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
I'm pro-gay marriage, for the record. Have been for many years.

I do have a very, very conservative family, though, and one of their arguments was always " They will always push for more "

Many on the Left always insisted that's all they wanted... That no agenda was at play, that the end-goal was in sight and that they would quietly fade into silence if they felt gays were treated equally...Yet...that's not the case at all.

The acronyms have multiplied more and more over the years, and the things we "have" to support have become more and more ridiculous. Violence, vandalism, and many crimes have been committed by those "peaceful" people that simply think the world could be a better place if their ideologies would just manifest. We see how insane things have become...

So my question is, were the conservatives correct?



You don't have to support anything. Stop thinking like a party member.



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
i love all these jokers straightfacedly alleging gays were never restricted or discriminated against,
right here in this very thread where they're calling us perversions and saying we destroy the sanctity of all marriage and don't deserve rights. that's some pretty special industrial-strength doublethink there.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Once again, we have the same gay movement, that eventually leads to the elimination of the female body type. Gay men do not need women around.


hi
since you seem to know all about exactly what is happening, and this is the first that i, a lowly homosexual, am hearing of any of it, i was just wondering if you could tell me - does this mean lesbians are no longer allowed in the Gay Agenda? i'd like some clarity on that. here was me thinking i wanted to be allowed to marry my girlfriend, to live in peace and not get murdered, but all along i was actually fighting for my own elimination? how did this happen? Really Makes You Think.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: StookieWilliams

Okay, well to a larger degree, I believe the government should not have the power to dictate what we do in our personal lives. "supporting" gay marriage is less about advocating for these particular people, and more about advocating for individual freedom.

Saying I support it is more to say that I do not have my own agenda against gay people in this thread...

But the lgbtqiaap group.. I do have something against.

It's ridiculous. I don't need a tiny portion of the population that I don't need to know about taking up any resources at all. If a politician or any government affiliated organization "supports" this madness with any amount of time, legislation creation, etc ... , that means our tax dollars are going towards the support of this insane agenda.

If such support is not happening.. I'm okay as far as that goes - but the amount of time such topics are drilled into us by the media is a whole other discussion.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   
One of their arguments was always " They will always push for more "

Many on the Left always insisted that's all they wanted... That no agenda was at play, that the end-goal was in sight and that they would quietly fade into silence if they felt gays were treated equally

I know!!

I felt the same about The Blacks.

First they wanted freedom from slavery. Ok, they got that, then wanted the right to vote. Seriously, freedom's not enough?? They got that, but complained when people tried to keep them from voting through intimidation, literacy tests, etc. Then they wanted to not be discriminated against or harassed and to be able to use the white restrooms and water fountains, eat at the same counters, and not have to go to the back of the bus, etc. The NERVE of those people, always wanting MORE.

After that, they wanted to not be discriminated against in employment, and wanted their OWN HISTORY MONTH to signify their historical struggle. The NERVE.

Always wanting more...


Great post! It's funny because The Christians are constantly whining and demanding for more. More benefits, tax free despite charging for special services and collecting "donations", the right to preach politics in the pulpit, insert mythology into education, etc. By that logic, we should have never given them freedom of religion in the first place, who knew it would lead to them demanding laws made in favor of religion like inserting "under god" into the pledge of alliance or onto currency. The absolute hypocrisy of these people to try to hold back homosexuals over a handful of cherry picked mythology quotes when they have been fighting against the constitution for a long time.


Loving these
edit on 22-6-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: silo13

originally posted by: Liquesence

a reply to: Liquesence, Deaf Alien

You're mixing apples and oranges.


In the larger context, nope.

People of African decent are a race.

Homosexuals are not.


Irrelevant. Bigotry doesn't just apply to races, it applies to anybody who is treated unfairly over something they cannot control or personal beliefs. They are a minority group that has been oppressed for centuries and is fighting for equal rights. It's the same concept and many groups have also done the same thing here in America.

And yes, bigots in the 50s and 60s argued the same slippery slope fallacy against African Americans, just like they did in the early 1900s over women's suffrage. It just shows how illogical the slippery slope fallacy is. Many people opposed it at the time citing very similar reasons, yet I don't see any of those crazy cascading effects. It's an argument based 100% on paranoia, nothing else. It was illogical then and it's illogical now.

edit on 6 22 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Great post! It's funny because The Christians are constantly whining and demanding for more. More benefits, tax free despite charging for special services and collecting "donations", the right to preach politics in the pulpit, insert mythology into education, etc. By that logic, we should have never given them freedom of religion in the first place, who knew it would lead to them demanding laws made in favor of religion like inserting "under god" into the pledge of alliance or onto currency. The absolute hypocrisy of these people to try to hold back homosexuals over a handful of cherry picked mythology quotes when they have been fighting against the constitution for a long time.




So beautifully put, I could not have said it better myself!

edit on 22-6-2017 by ReyaPhemhurth because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2017 by ReyaPhemhurth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: silo13

Well me and my boxer are just friends, I think we are going to keep it that way



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TinySickTears

and lactatia....classic
hahahahahah


I would have went with Cervixen.

I think Areola has a nice ring to it.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61
I think Areola has a nice ring to it.


I should have nipped that pun earlier.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

Uh, so to clarify what you're saying here, you have projected an automatic assumption about exactly what constitutes my values without knowing anything about my values?

So, with that observation out the way - let's begin: What and/or who is it that I "demonize, dehumanize, and disenfranchise"?

If I detect any presumptuousness about what you assume are my values in your response, you ain't gonna like my reply - just stick to the cold hard facts.


I'll be your huckleberry.

In this case I'm not presuming your exact value, since I don't have to on account of the fact that the basis of religious or ideological discrimination against a class of people is irrelevant; Its still discrimination.

That being said, since this thread is a discussion on gay rights, it is safe to read your post I initially quoted with the understanding that you are referencing gay rights, and specifically those individuals who take issue with your values and traditions.

Rather than guess what the specific wording of your values are, it would be better to see what kind of mental gymnastics you have to jump through to justify how your values/traditions take precedent over someone else. I kindly invite you to explain to us how your traditions and values (the ones I assume you have referenced in this thread and my post regarding dehumanizing/demonizing/disenfranchising) are in fact completely reasonable, rational, and non-offensive.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Planet teleX
I think the issue is consent. With gay marriage you have two concentual adults. There's no 'more' after that.


I saw a comedian once who said he fully supported gay marriage. He felt that gay people had every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: continuousThunder

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Once again, we have the same gay movement, that eventually leads to the elimination of the female body type. Gay men do not need women around.


hi
since you seem to know all about exactly what is happening, and this is the first that i, a lowly homosexual, am hearing of any of it, i was just wondering if you could tell me - does this mean lesbians are no longer allowed in the Gay Agenda?


Gay men don't really care about lesbians. At the moment, they are a convenient prop to use following the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing. So, you to tend to see all these LGBTQ...hang together, now, simply because they all support lifestyles that deviate from the dominant "straight" path. However, that "buddy" relationship isn't going to last. Gay men really only care about the "gay lifestyle." If a gay man and a lesbian compete in the presidential elections for office, the gay men will all vote for the gay candidate, and the lesbians will all vote for the lesbian candidate. They really only care about their own. As long as only straight candidates are running for office, the gay men and lesbian women will join together to help put the most LGBTQ friendly straight guy or gal in office. But, once the society reaches that stage where it's acceptable for the LGBTQ to be president and travel with their "spouse" around the world and be accepted even in places like Saudi Arabia, then the gay and lesbian will separate into opposing camps.



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Calling a community LBGTQ (and whatever else now comes after that) causes more segregation than they even realise. Of course, this does not account for all. But many continue to have their own established "community" and "clubs" etc, but yet expect seamless integration.

I see a world that is more accepting than ever before. I have zero issue. Many of my friends are homosexual/bisexual etc and they are fantastic people. However I see some people in a society or "community" that are, at times, being deliberately provocative.

My issue comes from this new age of "letting" children pick and choose their.... GENDER? I'm sorry but from ages, lets say, 5-18 life is confusing enough without making them question their gender. These are children and although acceptance should be taught at a young age we must remember how susceptible children are. And to make them question something as basic as being a male/female at the age of 8 is ridiculous. In my opinion.
edit on 23-6-2017 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: underpass61
I think Areola has a nice ring to it.


I should have nipped that pun earlier.




posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

....dude, are you honestly saying men and women can't be friends?
cus i've read that mess of a response a good ten times and that's the closest i can get to any meaning from it
and man have i got news for you
edit on 23-6-2017 by continuousThunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 05:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
And to make them question something as basic as being a male/female at the age of 8 is ridiculous. In my opinion.


gonna let you in on a little secret here - kids who are going to question their gender are going to question it regardless of what is taught in schools or accepted in society.
thing is, when you and i were young and this sort of thing was off limits to talk about, those gender questioning children were made to feel like monsters, alone in the world. they pushed those feelings down inside themselves until they festered into all sorts of mental illness that they would spend the rest of their lives untangling or taking out on the people around them.
Does anybody want that for their children? just a little bit of awareness and acceptance can change SO MUCH like honestly i can't express the difference it can make.



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: continuousThunder

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
And to make them question something as basic as being a male/female at the age of 8 is ridiculous. In my opinion.


gonna let you in on a little secret here - kids who are going to question their gender are going to question it regardless of what is taught in schools or accepted in society.
thing is, when you and i were young and this sort of thing was off limits to talk about, those gender questioning children were made to feel like monsters, alone in the world. they pushed those feelings down inside themselves until they festered into all sorts of mental illness that they would spend the rest of their lives untangling or taking out on the people around them.
Does anybody want that for their children? just a little bit of awareness and acceptance can change SO MUCH like honestly i can't express the difference it can make.


Im not saying that if a child displays this kind of questioning and gender identity "issue" we should not support them. I'm saying that it shouldn't become the norm.

Enabling a child to choose it's gender is dangerous. There will be many people in say, 20 years time who wish they hadn't been given that choice.



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

enabling choices for a child is dangerous?

whoa, i would hate to have been your child

also, there has never been a trans that was ungrateful for a parent who gave them that choice.

Just as you are so sure of your gender, the trans is sure of their gender.

A choice is NEVER a bad idea for ANY circumstance



edit on 23-6-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join