It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 06:42 PM

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Yes, it did. Here directly from the decision:

Certainly doesn't look like a change to me, looks like they were enforcing what it already stated.

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 06:55 PM
Will this even be an issue once the baby boomers die ( not that I want them to die)? How many young folk actually care about gay people getting married or hooking up?

It's just a non-issue with most people except older folk and the hardened religious.

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:11 PM
a reply to: CooBoo

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

You asked good questions, I always try to at least match if not exceed the thought and effort put into the questions I'm asked. It's one of my favorite ways of learning.

It's not as if we're actually giving pleasurable rewards to children for any specific behavior other than... not being little a*sholes to other people.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The attention is all positive all of the time. So while it's not a direct "incentive" per se, it's influential. Especially to kids who crave attention (especially positive attention).

I should clarify, even though I already have a few times. I am not against these displays or accepting other people's choices. All I ask is that you keep it adult centered and targeted. I really view it just like smoking. If you want to smoke, good on you. That's your choice I don't hate you for it, in fact I think you should be able to smoke indoors most places. I don't want gay people banned from public life and I would certainly vote for a gay representative without a second thought if they represented my values. Your sexuality doesn't bother me.

If I could choose, I wouldn't. If I had to, I'd choose 3-4 on the Kinsey scale (much like myself).

This is interesting and definitely not what I was expecting.
Why? Why not one end or the other?

I'm perfectly fine with that, as the judgment of one group/individual just doesn't matter to my perception of my self-worth.

I think this is one of the things that bothers me about this whole movement. Like you, my self worth is not tied to some group or individuals approval. It seems so over the top, it's like the jehovas witnesses who won't stop hounding you. I don't hate jehovas witnesses, but geez, leave me alone. Same with this whole group identity movement.

I don't hate on anyone for their proclivities behind closed doors (unless we're talking kids, that's no-go-I'll-kill-you territory), and I honestly don't know why anyone cares.

Amen. After the obergfell decision I hoped it would just fade into irrelevancy, like interracial marriage did (there were no interracial marriage pride parades or the like that I can recall learning about). On principal I disagree with gay marriage (I'm a big believer in words having meanings, if they don't then what's the point of them), but being open and honest here I don't really care.

And I somehow accomplished all of this while managing to be a sad, 'wrong' human who you should keep your children away from.

I've seen this sentiment and I don't get it. However, I respect that people are allowed to raise their kids how they want and not all of them are going to raise good, tolerant people. That's the price of freedom. My issue is not with gay people, it's with the LGBT promotion agenda and it's targeting of kids. Like I said, I know many great LGB people (I don't know any trans) and they're just like everyone else, trying to make a good life for themselves. I'm not a part of their sex life so why the hell should I care what it's like? I only care when they push it me and my kids (which again is the agenda folks, none of the actual people I know).

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:16 PM
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Of course, the 14th amendment existed long before obergefell. oops. They also overturned a prior decision that found it constitutional for states to limit marriage based on sex of the people entering into it. The reasoning in the obergefell decision never addresses the constitutional authority granted to the federal government to define the confines of marriage. In fact they talk at length about how legislation is the appropriate route but then decide that LGBT folks are being hurt too much so the SCOTUS needs to do some quick legislation to address it. It's the most laughable supreme court decision I've ever read. It is so light on justification the justices who signed it should be embarrassed.
edit on 4-6-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:53 PM
a reply to: Dfairlite

Just being real, but if the rightwing had been cool with giving gays an alternative with the same legal standing.. we are not having this discussion now..

Man I can’t even remember the tag line for the other opinion thing ... lol

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 08:05 PM

originally posted by: Dfairlite
It's the most laughable supreme court decision I've ever read.

Glad you at least got a good chuckle out of it, I laughed too when people like Kimmy Fat Tard heard the news too.

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 09:02 PM

originally posted by: JustJohnny
Man I can’t even remember the tag line for the other opinion thing ... lol

Civil union.

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 09:38 PM
So,you think all you have to do is wait for the baby boomers to all die off...
With this younger generation wanting it all and wanting it now,do you really
think they will patiently wait? One last thing,I am a baby boomer!

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:00 PM
a reply to: mamabeth

Yea.. It is just baby boomers because the young hardcore religious folk who are against homosexuality are in a small minority. Once baby boomers die off homosexuality wont be an issue. It's all the old folk who are against it. Just like they are against drugs.

A lot of old fools who think they know what is right. They will die and the new generations will take over.

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 11:50 PM
a reply to: SilentSaturn

I keep reading this from liberals. Heres what you guys forget. Those people have kids, and those people have kids, and so on and so on. Their values have been passed from generation to generation so your belief that its going to die out, is wrong. Keep pushing your false beliefs though.

posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 03:11 AM
a reply to: Sillyolme

I admire your effort but seriously...Why are you even trying common sense on this site?

posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 03:19 AM
a reply to: ketsuko

Funny thing is its usually you dickbag conservatives that like to bring the lgbt peoples sex lives into it. But please continue your idiocy.

posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 03:24 AM
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Go make one. You'd probly have the time to do so if you didnt have your head in your ass 24/7.

posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 03:30 AM
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Having a pride parade is gay peoples way of defining their sex lifes? Please explain. Its ok I can wait. I know your kinda wrapped up with that pulling your head out of your ass thing.

I'm pretty sure you and then other poster who posted this dumb # are just really upset with the fact that lgbt people don't have to hide their entire lives anymore. Boohoo, poor you.

posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 03:52 AM
I've been looking at reddit.

Cop a look at /detrans, people who realise that it was a mistake to transition.

/gender critical, gender critical feminism.

/its a fetish, articles etc showing that man so called trans suffer from autogynophillia, a sexual fetish

/it never happenen, a sub with articles showing trans crim

/traaaaa, a sub full of trans, it's so weird

/castration, it's post pics of their castration and get praised by a shill the calls himself a gelding

/radfem, radical feminists

/my partner is trans, people posting about relationship issues with trans

/ask trans, ask them anything and they tell you, your probably trans

I don't think homosexuals are born that way. I think many are groomed by older homosexuals. There was a YouTube video about this, but I can't find it.

Magdalen Bern's is a British scientist, lesbians and feminist, she posts great, short videos giving demolitions of terminology, rebutting other you tubers and explains the erasure of women's rights and lesbians by trans ideology.

Peachyougurt is a Dutch feminist that has excellent YouTube videos.
edit on 5-6-2019 by TheLorax because: Additional information

posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 04:28 AM

originally posted by: SilentSaturn
Will this even be an issue once the baby boomers die ( not that I want them to die)? How many young folk actually care about gay people getting married or hooking up?

It's just a non-issue with most people except older folk and the hardened religious.

Yes once the boomers die you will be ok....

Never mind entire countries like Russia, Iraq, saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran and so many more are against gays.

posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 09:09 AM
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


If the right/religious crowd had conceded to civil unions when that was all gays were asking for, this is a dead issue..

Gay get “Garried”(for a random example) and straights get Married and both hold the same legal standards..

But they played hard ball until the average opinion turned against the religious/right viewpoint..

Know when to holdem, when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run.

posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 09:11 AM
a reply to: JustJohnny

Did you just quote Kenny Rodgers?

posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 12:15 PM
a reply to: Sillyolme

What??? Like a dog turning his head.. = Please prove to me and everyone else that any individual is "Born" with being Gay = Absolutely False!! There is Zero Scientific data that this is the case.. ZERO! And everything else you've stated about being "born" is totally false and inaccurate..

edit on 5-6-2019 by hdchop because: add

posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 12:53 PM
a reply to: hdchop

Unfortunately, this is massively incorrect. There's actually quite a lot of research on this topic, almost all of it showing a very, very strong genetic component. Twin studies showed that monozygotic (identical) twins with one gay twin had a 50-55% occurrence of both being gay, while dizygotic (fraternal) twins had a much lower incidence. This study was conducted on twins separated at birth, which removes the nurture component. Based on the penetrance of the gene expression (50%), this is pretty conclusive. What that basically means is that if both carry the 'gay gene', there's a 50% chance of it being expressed. If one of a pair of twins has the expressed gene, then the odds would be 50% that the other would as well, and that is borne out in the evidence/data of 50-55% occurrence.

Additionally, post-mortem evaluations of brain structure (Allen, Gorsky, Swaab, Cohen) found that both the anterior commissure and suprachiasmatic nucleus are 35-55% larger in gay men than in heterosexual men; while many structures of the brain develop based on stimuli, the latter is not a structure that could/would be influenced by exposure to outside factors, rather it has been determined at birth. [To clarify, this is not from the LeVay study, which was deeply flawed as it only evaluated brains of men who'd died from HIV and assumed they were gay.]

Studies pre-2000 make several hypotheses and come to similar conclusions, however it was all hypothetical and debatable as the conclusions were drawn on inferences of the genetic components. This has led to a lot of confusion among those who've not bothered to continue their education on the matter. The more recent studies (which I cited) are far more definitive and point to specific gene markers that we've identified with our advanced scientific technology. The last study refuting this point was from 1996, all peer-reviewed studies since have demonstrated the genetic component. We've literally identified a gene that has a MUCH higher expression in those who live a homosexual lifestyle, to the point of inarguability. There is, at the very least, a VERY strong and empirically proven genetic component.

Additionally, longitudinal studies by the APA and AAP concluded that there was no statistical significance re: whether a child was raised by gay parents and whether or not they turned out to be gay. One would think that in this particular environment, there would be a preponderance of expression if this were a matter of exposure/nurture.

The facts are just the facts.

Anyway, just needed to correct this.

new topics

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in