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.

 

Pride Month: The Slippery Slope Is Real

page: 13
46
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: LSU2018

Neither is being gay. It's also probably less traumatic covering up your Irishness than it is being homosexual.

BTW, the prevalence of homosexuality has remained constant for a while, if not been on the rise. Meanwhile experts say that red hair will be all but non-existent in the near future. Clearly one of these is more evolutionarily fit than the other.


Fire your sources. Red hair will be as non existent in the future as the tiny minority of gay people.

On second thought, keep your sources. I've already lost all faith in your comprehension skills. You've been wrong this long. I guess it's true, what you don't know won't hurt you.




posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
He knows. He didn't have an answer when you called him out on not infringing on the freedoms of one of the seven deadly sins. Pride.


My answer was in my statement. I said as a Libertarian I was happy that a contract in one state is valid in another. The impetus of how the decision was arrived upon for the Justices using the Fourteenth now makes the contracts valid under the Tenth which I find personally to be more important.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Zing! Kick'em in the bible belt!

*that's an awesome joke get over it



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You did say that, but that completely ignores the ruling. The ruling doesn't just say "if they were married in maine, they can move to idaho and still be married." The ruling says Idaho must make the terms of the contract originating in their state the same as everyone else, but not only that, we are choosing to say that the terms of the contract should say this."

Hardly a champion of the constitution, I see.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Dfairlite

Read the study I posted. When I used the phrase "physiological response" I didn't mean higher heart rate or blood pressure.


Does this mean I'm asexual since I wake up nearly every morning with a hard on even when I've dreamed of neither man nor woman? Just wondering, because men have never turned me on and even in my wildest days, I lost my hard on when I was right in the middle of having sex with my college GF during a normal porn and then saw two guys going at it when I looked up at the screen. I've been into girls since I was 4 years old and snuck under the covers with my grandmother's maid's granddaughter and we tickled each other's junk after we took our bottoms off.

I don't, and never have supported the gay lifestyle, yet I don't fear or hate or dislike my gay uncle. So please enlighten me on whether or not I'm a closet homosexual or with the logic in your post, a closet asexual.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



Based on religious grounds which violates the First Amendment. So again, suck it up marys.


You need to re-read the first amendment. What are the first five words and who do they apply to? Furthermore, it certainly doesn't need the bible to justify it. It could easily be justified by tradition or biology.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
You did say that, but that completely ignores the ruling. The ruling doesn't just say "if they were married in maine, they can move to idaho and still be married." The ruling says Idaho must make the terms of the contract originating in their state the same as everyone else, but not only that, we are choosing to say that the terms of the contract should say this."

Hardly a champion of the constitution, I see.


Holy crap dude, I gave MY opinion, not the Justice's opinion on why I agree. You savvy the difference?



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

You need to re-read the first amendment. What are the first five words and who do they apply to? Furthermore, it certainly doesn't need the bible to justify it. It could easily be justified by tradition or biology.


Nah, it's pretty clear that turds like Lil Kim in Kentucky can't use their own religious litmus test on anything since they are the government.

I laugh every time I think of her fat ass.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   
As A redhead I am not sure how the hell we have been dragged into this nonsense, but the mutation of the gene which causes redheads will exist forever, unless you non redheads stop mating with us


Myself and partner are both redheads thus my son is, but non of my parents were redheads, it is a gene passed on but can skip a generation, having red hair is an advantage in certain climates as we can take more vitamin D from less sunlight, so when the world finally hits the fan, it maybe redheads outlast all you 'normies', yeah take that, a world run by redheads



The Myth of Redhead Extinction News reports reported on the imminent extinction of redheads in August 2007. Like many other myths circulating on the internet, the reports were incorrect. Based on the incorrect assumption that recessive genes will "die out" over time, the news reports stated that the gene for red hair would be gone by the year 2060. The reports supposedly came from the Oxford Hair Foundation, but no such scientific entity exists. The Oxford Hair Foundation manufactures beauty products and is not an academic facility. The claim that redheads are going extinct is completely false: recessive genes may become rare, but will not disappear from the human genome. Red hair will exist well beyond the year 2060!


Red hair

Redheads: The Genetics of Hair Color

We maybe one of the smallest minority groups, I will never bemoan that fact, I will also happily make light of the fact I am ginger, so dont worry about that, I do not get offended, want the biggest joke. In my younger days I had a full head of ginger hair, I would be called ginger b~@tard or similar, now age has decide to remove most of my ginger hair and now I get called a bald B~@tard, i much prefered being a ginger b~@tard



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And yet, you are still unable to muster up the courage to admit that the ruling got it wrong and was an assault on the constitution. It should be pretty easy since you're a libertarian and have extreme fidelity to the constitution. Instead it seems you have more fidelity to policy that you agree with.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LSU2018
2 out of 327,000,000. Yeah I can see the trend there.


Someone else provided some juicy data.


t wasn't juicy. Did you read it? It was people who were negative about homosexuals and deemed homophobes, lol. And their peckers were measured as tapes skipped through different pornos. Not very convincing.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
And yet, you are still unable to muster up the courage to admit that the ruling got it wrong and was an assault on the constitution. It should be pretty easy since you're a libertarian and have extreme fidelity to the constitution. Instead it seems you have more fidelity to policy that you agree with.


Nope, I agree with it. Religious asstards and their policies have no place in government.

Not sure why you want to refight a fight that you lost but have at it. Keep thinking it's wrong while it's now the law of the land.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Your inability to focus and actually discuss the topic is really weird. Have you been tested for ADD? And whats with this obsession with some lady in kentucky? I don't know who you're even talking about.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Hate + Fear + Trends = Your Rights

Hate - People are allowed to hate. It may not be nice. It may not be the way people want things to be but it is real life. I know hard core Christians who hate gays openly but are in the closet and I know some gay people who call others 'breeders'. The hate is on both sides of the argument and will always be there. It is, however, a small minority. The majority live their lives as they always have.

Fear - Some people fear it as if they can 'catch' being gay. Some fear coming out. Fear of norms. Fear of disappointment.

Trends - Right now it is 'trendy' to be gay. Has been for the last decade or so. Men and women wearing each others clothes. The rise of 'toxic masculinity' and the non-baking of cakes.

Your Rights - The government will use Fear and Hate and Trends to push a legislation to assist those who will benefit them. It is not for the masses. Less than 5% of the population identify as LGBT. They do not need protections they need to integrate. There are laws in place already there is no need to create 400 sexual identities.

You are male or female. That's it. If you want to transition you can and you legally become the other sex. This ALREADY on the books.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: LSU2018

You literally said that a homosexual that is out and proud is no different than a depressed person that shoots up their place of work.

Where did I misconstrue your statement?


You know exactly what I'm implying. Being miserable and taking down as many as you can with you. If you can think of a better scenario, go for it. It's no different than wanting to protest a business and trying to orchestrate a page to call in others to help you out because you don't want to do it alone.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



Nope, I agree with it. Religious asstards and their policies have no place in government.


So you admit you have no real backing of the constitution when it may get in the way of policies you want? Quite the libertarian. LOL.



Keep thinking it's wrong while it's now the law of the land.

And the leftism comes out. Pray tell, was it wrong before the ruling too? Afterall it was the law of the land. Your intellect is severely lacking.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
t wasn't juicy. Did you read it? It was people who were negative about homosexuals and deemed homophobes, lol. And their peckers were measured as tapes skipped through different pornos. Not very convincing.


I read it and it makes sense to a rational person. People who like gay sex get excited when they watch gay sex. Whether they are overt about being gay is besides the point, the proof is in their pudding pudging.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LSU2018
He knows. He didn't have an answer when you called him out on not infringing on the freedoms of one of the seven deadly sins. Pride.


My answer was in my statement. I said as a Libertarian I was happy that a contract in one state is valid in another. The impetus of how the decision was arrived upon for the Justices using the Fourteenth now makes the contracts valid under the Tenth which I find personally to be more important.


So changing the constitution is cool since you agreed with the changes. Got it.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Your inability to focus and actually discuss the topic is really weird. Have you been tested for ADD?


Huh? You say something?



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

Yes, basically that's what he's saying. "F*** the constitution. I want this." All while masquerading as a constitutionalist and a libertarian.

BTW Augustus, the libertarian position on this issue is that government shouldn't be in the business of marriage.




top topics



 
46
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join