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.


Prop. 8

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:12 AM
reply to post by Jemison

As for the 'deviant' remark.

The estimated percentage for homosexuals is anywhere from 1% to 20% of the population. Which of course is hard to ascertain considering the intolerance. Right?

Most seem to float around 10%. That would be around 30 million people.


let's pretend it's 1%. That is still 3,000,000 human beings that are gay in the USA.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:16 AM
The deviance argument is invalid:

A definition of Deviance:

Deviance describes actions or behaviors that violate cultural norms including formally-enacted rules

This means, that by definition, you are a deviant for being a member of ATS, and discussing conspiracy theories...

Do you feel the urge to have sexual relations with animals?

how is this less deviant?

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:18 AM
Oh good, yes. Lets restrict peoples rights! All for it, anything that doesn't fit my world views should be banned!

However, I believe that ever sexuality has the same right to be with one person, bound in marriage.

Heck, these gay people are at least as dangerous as black folks and women!
Look what happened when we gave them equal rights!

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:23 AM
Also, if marriage is so sacred, why are there infidelities, or divorce, or parents leaving their spouses and children? Or is it just pure hypocrisy? Think about it? If people can get married for just kicks but not for love and affection? Bull S#*t I dare say.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:53 AM

Originally posted by RuneSpider
Heck, these gay people are at least as dangerous as black folks and women!
Look what happened when we gave them equal rights!

They ran for Presidency

Oh my...maybe there is a radical agenda after all!!

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:10 AM

Originally posted by Jemison

We have become a society that spends all of our time and money tip-toeing around minorities of any kind wether it be race, religion, sexuality, etc. and the political correctedness has gone too far.

Isn't proposition 8 a lot of time and money spent towards suppressing a minority?

Clearly too much time and money is being spent on this issue, but most often, the focus seems to be around those wanting a ban.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
I think I will vote Yes on Proposition 8 ...

... just to take the piss out of the Gay nazis in Hollywood, you all know who you are.

No on Hate/8!

and your remark "my friend" sounds like HATE to me...blind, unfeeling, thoughtless, needless HATE.

Whadya you care who get's married...Really???

Well what comes around goes around!

Well it's like this fellas, I have been around the Hollywood scene for quite a long time. Time to see the Gay Nazis proclaim that if you aren't gay, you can't work for certain companies or in certain Crafts Unions like the Set Dressers, Costume and Wardrobe, where there is now an ongoing battle between the Gay nazis and the few remaining Latinos. Where the Bosses of the Security Department at a major Hollywood Film Studio (WB) have to ask the homosexuals where they want to work so the gays won't "have to sweat", and ordering the 'straight folks' to work at assigned locations.
So if you want to talk about "blind, unfeeling, thoughtless, needless HATE" then you better tell your "gay" friends that it is a two-way street. If they want to be accepted they had better be accepting and stop discriminating against other people as you know they do every time they work one of their friends into what is supposed to be an 'open' job.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:47 PM
Just thought I would chime in and let you all know that right now, in the skies of Orange County, CA, the words "Save traditional marriage" are overhead in stuff that looks like clouds.

I had heard that more money was being spent on Prop 8 than all other props in Cali combined but I never imagined someone would be writing stuff in the sky!! Banners flying planes are pretty much an every day occurrance but having the cloud writing is pretty rare these days.


posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:51 PM
reply to post by 2stepsfromtop

certain Crafts Unions like the Set Dressers, Costume and Wardrobe

Does not equal the Gay Community. Which is probably floating around 30 million people.

The only thing your example shows is that homosexuals are human just like heterosexuals and can make bad judgments too.

Your example in no way shape or form should be extended to the Gay Community as a whole.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:52 PM
reply to post by Jemison

So you just chimed in real quick to tell us people support this so much they spent lots of money on the clouds?

How about chiming in to respond to the members that posted to you?

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:56 PM
First off "gay rights" should be defered to the state level.We have antiquated federal laws,such as the ability to only have one spouse at a time.If a woman wanted three husbands and the three men agreed,what is the problem?Who is your daddy? That question is a moot point with dna testing and the like.
If gay's want to marry,let them if people want to do drugs,let them.If a prostitute want to prostitute why not? Why are there laws that limit an adult from accessing forms of pleasure that harm no one but themselves.
This country has no right to dictate your personal "pursuit of happiness"

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:14 PM
OK let's leave the line at love between 2 people.

If say a father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister, brother/brother, ... any combination of said family BEING IN LOVE, decided they wanted marriage rights also you would be ok with that right.

Remember the line is LOVE. not your personal preference.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:24 PM
reply to post by TXPatriot38

Sorry I beat you to it

The Line:

Two consenting human adults.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 12:12 PM

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
...So if you want to talk about "blind, unfeeling, thoughtless, needless HATE" then you better tell your "gay" friends that it is a two-way street. If they want to be accepted they had better be accepting and stop discriminating against other people as you know they do every time they work one of their friends into what is supposed to be an 'open' job.

I am sorry the "gay nazis" prevented you from realizing your dream to become a hairdresser or interior designer!

At least I know WHY you are angry! Makes a little more sense.

I was glad to see ATS got some "NO ON 8/HATE" advertising dollars!

There was a great article in The Daily Beast by Max Blumenthal. It is called The Man Behind Prop 8. That man is Howard F. Ahmanson strange cat!

The campaign for Prop 8 has reaped massive funding from conservative backers across the country. Much of it comes from prominent donors like the Utah-based Church of Latter Day Saints and the Catholic conservative group, Knights of Columbus. Prop 8 has also received a boost from Elsa Broekhuizen, the widow of Michigan-based Christian backer Edgard Prince and the mother of Erik Prince, founder of the controversial mercenary firm, Blackwater.

...While Ahmanson once resided in a mental institution in Kansas, he now occupies a position among the Christian right’s power pantheon as one of the movement’s most influential donors. During a 1985 interview with the Orange County Register, Ahmanson summarized his political agenda: “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.”

The campaign to teach “intelligent design” in public school classrooms, the Republican takeover of the California Assembly, and the rollback of affirmative action in California—Ahmanson has been behind them all. He has also taken a special interest in anti-gay crusades. Ahmanson’s most controversial episode related to his funding of the religious empire of Rousas John Rushdoony, a radical evangelical theologian who advocated placing the United States under the control of a Christian theocracy that would mandate the stoning to death of homosexuals.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 12:32 PM
Well I live in So California and me and whole family voted Yes on 8,on the way we saw a crowd of about 50 holding vote Yes on 8,across the street was 1 guy saying vote No on 8,

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:27 AM
Well it looks like Proposition 8 will pass in California ... guess I can look into sewing costumes for a living ... gonna join me there Leo?

The problem once this passes, which was the problem before, is that the word 'marriage' is used as the defining word for legal benefits due a spouse, not 'legal union'. The way to correct it now is to take 'marriage' out of the hands of religion and place it soley in the domain of the state.

Of course to all those Churches and other Tax-Exempt religious institutions, you might want to consider what you're going to be telling the IRS about your political activities.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 03:16 AM
reply to post by Daedalus24

I'm certain some evangelical Christians I've met wouldn't hesitate to immediately abandon their children in the middle of the woods, where they can not possibly bring any more shame to their "family". To these people, sadly, having a family is more of a political statement than anything meaningful.

reply to post by TXPatriot38

You do know that there are such things as incest laws, right? Unfortunately love doesn't cross all boundaries. In fact a normally functioning individual is genetically hardwired to have diminished sexual attraction to their family members. So if yours was the case, they would first have to undergo extreme psychoanalysis to prove that their intentions of intimacy with these family members were rationally motivated, and not simply a result of deficient biology. Then again, keeping the gene pool clean has been a fairly uncontested area since the beginning of law itself, and presumably much before that.

If you are implying that there is a similarity between homosexual relations and incestuous relations, then you are very mistaken. Although members participating in either are subject to social estrangement, and social mores across many isolated cultures tend to disfavor homosexuality, there is no serious comparison between the two. Incest is a sexual preference based on psychological illness, while homosexuality, despite its perhaps many biological and physiological motivators, is a perfectly psychologically healthy choice, in the context of an individual's ability to come to rational decisions.

Biologically speaking, a homosexual relationship is healthier than an incestuous one. Even in the context of reproductive fitness, normal society as a whole tends to benefit from an excess of technically infertile males. There are so many pros to pile over, should we decide to take this route. But I feel it strips the entirety humanity from this issue.

But we're not here to analyze the benefits of homosexuality to society against its scientific benefits, or even to . We are here to acknowledge the freedom of all people to pursue happiness and liberty under Constitutional law.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by cognoscente]

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 03:32 AM
Whoo Hoo! Prop 8 is passing!!!! Time to celebrate!!!

Proud to be straight and married, I'm on my side.

I'm glad the definition of marriage isn't being watered down.

Unfortunately Obama got elected, severely rough times ahead - the Captain of the boat has no experience sailing.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:09 AM
Yes the people of California have spoken,again! let see how long till it's brought up again

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by Dbriefed

When will you be pressing to have divorce made illegal and mandatory jail time for adulterers?

Because if you don't, you're going to be one hell of a hypocrite. And homophobic, to boot.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in