Video: Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman

page: 22
14
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I'm not too sure man.

Did they reject the notion of civil unions because they see it as unequal to marriage or what?




posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MacDonagh

At one point, I suggested as an alternative to the senseless fighting of a losing battle at this time, the following idea: All legal references to marriage would be replaced with 'civil union', taking marriage completely out of the secular arena and placing it in religious hands only. All legal benefits and opportunities would have to be based on civil union rather than marriage, so there could be no legal distinction between sexual orientation of the couple involved. Marriages already recognized would be immediately accepted as a civil union, and future marriages could be awarded civil union status if performed by a recognized religion, based on state law. Courthouse 'weddings', available to any two consenting adults, would be simply a civil union, not a marriage.

Win-win situation. Gays can have every right any other couple has, and no church marriage would be affected. It was rejected out of hand.

I also asked this question at one point: if marriage is eventually defined as a civil right, and a gay couple asked a minister o disagreed with gay marriage to marry them, could he, if he refused, be subject to civil rights violation charges? Only two people out of at least twenty posting in that thread bothered to even address the concern, and both of them, to their credit, said they did not think such was appropriate or would be legal based on current law.

Rejection, then silence. Little in this world speaks louder than silence. And laws can change very easily.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   
The whole thing looks like a setup to me, completely phoney!

How can some people be taken in by this crap that the news companies try to feed us??

When I read the title of this thread - I too thought this is disgraceful, but after seeing the video - nah load of rubbish.

Just Prop 8 supporters trying to garner further support.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Dramey
 


The Thing is that the Civil rights act of 1964 wasn't put to a public vote in the USA, do you seriously think the majority of people would have passed such a law at a time when segregation of races was the accepted norm? - And just say hypothetically - if this had been put to a public vote in a State where racism was predominant, and the majority won the vote - does that make it right?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
This is getting way out of line, people have no respect for their elders these days whatsoever. That poor old lady should have mased those men.

It reminds me of how these people will be the ones trying to ban Christianity. Such traits of condemnation go a very long horrid way. If the Creator of the universe wanted same sex relationships he would have never invented the Female.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by topsecretombomb
 


But then the women wouldn't have been able to have their same sex relationships either if they hadn't been "invented" as you see it!



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by topsecretombomb
 



It reminds me of how these people will be the ones trying to ban Christianity.


And you have proof to this outlandish claim? I don’t suspect you have even a teeny, tiny flicker of evidence. You do realize there are gay religious people? Straights don’t have a monopoly on religion or morality.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by topsecretombomb
If the Creator of the universe wanted same sex relationships he would have never invented the Female


So by this logic before Eve all men were created gay. Or at the least, all men had the propensity to become gay. That's what you said implies.

So you acknowledge that not only did the Creator make homosexuals! But Adam himself might have been one. Interesting


You should pay closer attention to your Christian fueled bigotry when you allow it to manifest in spoken word


[edit on 17-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

So by this logic before Eve all men were created gay. Or at the least, all men had the propensity to become gay. That's what you said implies.

I know this was a jab, Lucid, but you did hit on something I find interesting.

Men, when isolated from women, will have a much higher rate of homosexual encounters than men who are in a setting where women are abundant. It does apparently have to do with availability of 'suitable' mates. Male dogs, as well, will prefer a female dog when one is available (and even search them out when they are in heat), but if confined with other males will begin to practice homosexual behavior. Interestingly enough, the higher the 'ranking' of a male dog in its society, the more apt that dog will be to act as the male in the encounter.

It's pheromone-induced behavior. The urge to mate can become so strong that eventually the slightest indication of female can produce the same urges that are normally reserved for intergender activity. The one difference I see between men and male dogs in this respect is that the dogs are acting mostly out of uncontrollable instinct, while we should be able to control our urges.

I'd say that, even though we tend to think of ourselves as somehow above all other animals, there are still physical vestiges of animalistic behavior that exist in sufficient force as to overrule some people's civilized exterior.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Redneck, I think you've "outed" yourself.
At first I gave tentative support to what appeared to be a plea for caution and moderation on your part - a sensible approach in most matters. Then I began to wonder if you weren't just dressing up a roadblock in fancy dress several posts back, by suggesting that gay people just accept something less than full marriage and be happy with that and essentially sit down and be quiet. Was it really the fighting you were concerned about, or the outcome?
Then it comes out that the issue at hand, prop 8, turns out to be less of a concern to you than defending your Christianity.
I am not allowed to say anything negative about you personally, but there is no need. You have outed yourself quite clearly. You don't want to hear about the problems rightly attributed to Christian institutions and have (not so suddenly) become all defensive.
Nice try buddy. The wolf in sheep's clothing, thinking you could come in pretending to be a friend in order to smooth talk your way into convincing us we were wrong.
At best I would hope you are just confused about sexuality and religion, but that might be giving you too much credit.
Not sure you deserve the benefit of the doubt any more.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by WickedStar
 


that's terribly sad! i don't understand what gets into people's minds to believe so firmly that the other guy needs to die because of x, y or z. this problem is not isolated to religions either. it's rampant in almost any differences you find within society. even the difference between socialism and capitalism has spawned some real ugly crimes, on a massive scale (so bad, you wouldn't believe the numbers!). people killing people for countless reasons, some of them no more important than a difference of opinion on clothing styles! it can and has gotten that bad.

i'm sorry to see such things happening to gay people or any people for that matter. the whole thing sucks.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by wayno

I can see where you could come to that conclusion. It is somewhat rare for me to shift positions. Allow me to defend my position to you.

My first concern was indeed over the fighting and where it would lead us as a society. Gay marriage in itself does not affect me. I am legally married, and as I do not believe in divorce, I will no doubt stay married until one of us passes over to whatever awaits us. If the issue were truly about gay marriage, my position would not have changed.

I believe in fairness and equity, based on an individuals accomplishments in life. I have never pushed any agenda which was intended to limit freedom of the individual or equality for those who feel different from me. I believe in the ideal of protecting all freedom and equality, without exception.

But in order to protect all freedom, no group may be left out of the equation. You cannot level a table by setting it on its edge. All people includes me as well as you. I originally supported Affirmative Action as a necessary means to accomplish equality. I now oppose Affirmative Action, because I have seen it used to discriminate against whites, and I believe its purpose has been fulfilled. I oppose religious persecution, whether toward or from any church. I oppose any special treatment for anyone based on skin color, whether their skin color be white, black, green, or purple with yellow polka-dots. I oppose the societal ban on the 'N' word because it is aimed only towards one group, whites. I oppose the use of that same word by anyone when it is intended as a slur.

It is easy to say that I do not somehow deserve the same protections as other groups because I am not a minority. But equality, IMO, does not mean equality only for minorities. Equality is equality for everyone. I have been the victim of discrimination. Look at my avatar on the left; that is me. Imagine me walking into a restaurant and being ignored for over 30 minutes until I finally left and got a fast food burger instead of a hot meal. It's happened. Imagine me being brought into the bosses' office because a woman overheard a private conversation between me and another worker on our break that she mistook as a sexual slur? That's happened too. Imagine me in an engineering school, forced to prove myself over everyone else because of my looks and my accent. That happened too.

I have fought personal discrimination all my life. And because I have fought those fights, I can empathize with others who are fighting their own versions of discrimination. We are all fighting, wayno, just different battles. It's human nature to ignore the fighting of others while you are in a fight of your own, but it doesn't make those other people's fights any more or less important than yours.

So, yes, I defend Christianity against discrimination. I defend whites against discrimination. I defend southerners against discrimination. I defend myself against discrimination. Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Are you so much greater than I, that your fight is critical, while mine for the same thing is worthless?

I have said it before and I will say it again: someone please let me know when this fight becomes truly about equality. As of now, I do not believe it is. I believe it is to some, yes, quite possibly to you personally, and I wish I could support them. But I see larger issues at stake, issues which have at their core discrimination against others. That means, if it is true, that those who are fighting this war for true equality are mere pawns being played in a larger game of discrimination. One cannot support the pawns without supporting the game.

May I be wrong; if I am proven wrong, then I will have a lot of apologizing and personal soul-searching to do. But I do not believe I am wrong. For me to be wrong, the actions taken so far would have to come from the most illogical minds I can fathom.

I hope that clears things up for you. If not, if you prefer to believe me a hypocrite, then I can do nothing to convince you otherwise and I wish you all the best.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Are you so much greater than I, that your fight is critical, while mine for the same thing is worthless?
This is where it appears you've gotten yourself bogged down a bit in the mud, so to speak.
Everyone who has ever lived has suffered the indignities of some buffoon at some point in their life; especially if you are different in some discernible way from the "majority".
We've all been there. Trust me.
Having said that, defending one problem area does not negate the validity of others. For you gay issues are not a priority, and so be it. Stay out of the fray. Its not your issue.
For you, the rights of religious persons and of white persons is more the issue - then be clear about that. If your issues intersect with ours at some point, like it probably does in prop 8, then you can't take both sides. You have a bias, and you need to be clear about that.
Not all persons who are gay on the otherhand have an automatic bias against your religion. You have irrationally come to think so. You are wrong.
Our issue stands on its own merit. Whether or not some gay people are mad at religious institutions is irrelevant and does not affect the validity of their stance in any way.
Not every every wrong of society can be fought by everyone at the same time. Go ahead and defend the rights of white people and of religious people to the extent you feel necessary - because that is your priority. Great! You can do that while we work on our priority. Just don't try and lump everything all together into one big mush of "woe is me" and "my problem is bigger than your problem", which is what you are doing, cuz in that mess legitimate issues of the minority will always lose out to those of the majority.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
redneck,

i do believe one of the people said the issue was that civil unions don't carry the same benefits as traditional marriages. that shows a societal preference for traditional marriage, which frankly, is not bad on the surface, but since this country is supposed to be a melting pot, not melting is anathema to the ideal.

i honestly believe some of these folks have a point, that being that the government truly has no business legislating what is and isn't sacred because, unless they can prove they're gods or in direct communication with the same, the concept of sacred in the hands of government officials is very rubbery. it can do good or evil! i think they need to just set that aside and quit the pretense of actually following what it says in scripture. the foundational laws of the land don't allow for both! of course, some people want to toss out the foundational laws of the land,which would be a grave mistake!

another issue is mob mentality. elections are won on mob mentality. issue votes are also won on mob mentality. this is why they started teaching people young, in public schools, to be tolerant of races, religions and sexual proclivities between consenting adults. if the mob won't vote how they are supposed to in order to uphold the melting pot ideal, then it seems they feel it necessary to brainwash the mob en masse. i don't agree with that either. but this is how humans are maintained, like a group of cows with a cow herder, who moves us around and convinces us to go in one direction rather than another. been true for 1000's of years.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
how bloody dare they step on the cross, i use to think homosexuals were normal but this clearly shows that they are vile sick animals



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

So by this logic before Eve all men were created gay. Or at the least, all men had the propensity to become gay. That's what you said implies.

I know this was a jab, Lucid, but you did hit on something I find interesting.

Men, when isolated from women, will have a much higher rate of homosexual encounters than men who are in a setting where women are abundant. It does apparently have to do with availability of 'suitable' mates. Male dogs, as well, will prefer a female dog when one is available (and even search them out when they are in heat), but if confined with other males will begin to practice homosexual behavior. Interestingly enough, the higher the 'ranking' of a male dog in its society, the more apt that dog will be to act as the male in the encounter.

It's pheromone-induced behavior. The urge to mate can become so strong that eventually the slightest indication of female can produce the same urges that are normally reserved for intergender activity. The one difference I see between men and male dogs in this respect is that the dogs are acting mostly out of uncontrollable instinct, while we should be able to control our urges.



Wow.. I was with you all the way up to that last sentence. We should be able to control our urges? really? I mean sexual urges seem to be the ones which nobody can control. I mean.. look at Catholic Priests and the level of child molestation coming from a supposed celibate order.






I'd say that, even though we tend to think of ourselves as somehow above all other animals, there are still physical vestiges of animalistic behavior that exist in sufficient force as to overrule some people's civilized exterior.

TheRedneck


I don't think of myself as above Animals at all. Different yes... above? Nah... Not sure where that idea got started...maybe in the ego.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by wayno

Everyone who has ever lived has suffered the indignities of some buffoon at some point in their life; especially if you are different in some discernible way from the "majority".
We've all been there. Trust me.

I understand that. So have I. We are in agreement here.


Having said that, defending one problem area does not negate the validity of others. For you gay issues are not a priority, and so be it. Stay out of the fray. Its not your issue.

Here is where we differ, apparently in terms of long-range outlook.

It really is my issue whenever someone is undergoing discrimination, just as surely as it is my place to defend a woman I see being attacked (would you ask me to stop that as well?). As I would hope it would be your issue whenever you saw a social injustice toward another. You see, I believe we are, at our best, our brothers' keepers. It is not my place to tell you what you can do with your life, but it is my place to come to your rescue when I see others doing so. Do you really believe the blacks who are now a major part of our society (including the Presidency) would have been able to win their freedoms unless some in the majority stood up for them? They had no vote, they had no freedom, they had no power prior to the Civil War. They needed help, and they got help, from those in the majority who stood up and declared "This is wrong".


For you, the rights of religious persons and of white persons is more the issue - then be clear about that. If your issues intersect with ours at some point, like it probably does in prop 8, then you can't take both sides. You have a bias, and you need to be clear about that.

We all have our own biases, and I thought that would be self-explanatory. Forgive me if I overestimated others views on humanity. Allow me to correct this error: My first and foremost duty is to myself and my family.

And the fact that I cannot take the side I wish to take, because of that duty we all have in common, is why I am so disgusted about this. I support equality. I will always support equality. But if your equality begins to affect my equality, something is wrong. If my equality begins to affect your equality, something is wrong. If A + B = C, A + B cannot be more equal than C. It's not possible. That equations becomes an inequality.

Thus, if my fight adversely affects yours, then I need to re-examine my fight. If your fight adversely affects mine, you should re-evaluate your fight. No war can be won when the soldiers fight themselves, and that includes the war on equality.


Not all persons who are gay on the otherhand have an automatic bias against your religion. You have irrationally come to think so. You are wrong.

You misunderstand me. I know there are those who are not anti-religion in this fight. You (based on the civility of your posts) are apparently one of them.

I do not state opposition because everyone on your side is anti-religion, and please forgive me if I have made that impression. I state opposition because too many appear to be anti-religious, and too many appear to want to use any victory achieved to 'rub it in the nose of' Christianity in particular and religious groups in general.

That is not a fight for equality. It is a fight for vengeance.


Not every every wrong of society can be fought by everyone at the same time.

But every successful fight has received the support of a large portion of the majority before it succeeded.


Just don't try and lump everything all together into one big mush of "woe is me" and "my problem is bigger than your problem", which is what you are doing, cuz in that mess legitimate issues of the minority will always lose out to those of the majority.

But that is exactly my point, and exactly what your side is doing. Do you not see that? If you continue to fight based on your cause being the only one that matters you will continue to alienate those whom you must have in order to be victorious.

When it comes down to it, every civil rights victory that has occurred in this great country (and indeed world-wide) throughout history has had the support of a majority of those who are vocal and active. This fight will be no different. This is the way it is going: Side A has a complaint, and presses for a solution. Side B rejects them. Side A becomes more vocal. Side B passes laws against Side A. Side A circumvents those laws. Side B passes a Constitutional amendment. Side B protests, and somehow circumvents that amendment. Side A then resorts to violence, with the full power and support of the police. Side A is destroyed.

On the other hand, if you fight for actual equality, it will work like this: Side A has a complaint, and presses for a solution. Side B rejects the solution. Side A becomes more vocal, and in the process recruits supporters from Side B. Side B passes a law against Side A. Side A circumvents the law. Side B passes a Constitutional amendment against Side A. Side A takes their complaint to the people and recruits more support from Side B. Side B begins to prosecute Side A. Side A, now larger than Side B, passes their own Constitutional amendment and is victorious against Side B.

The difference is support. Those whom you protest with reflect on you and your cause. That is human nature, just as you judge the local department store by its employees and their attitudes as opposed to that of the owners. If you gai support from the people for a just cause, you will win. If you gather distrust from the people over an unjust attitude, you will lose, and you will lose miserably and violently.

I will leave you with something I happened to catch when I was trying not to watch the protests this weekend. The issue is equality, correct? Yet I saw one woman at the protests waving a sign that said "Lesbian sex is fun".

It may be about equality for you. But how many people watching now think it is about fun sex? Why did no one at the protest inform her she was harming the cause?

Think about it. And remember to let me know when I can support equality with you again. I will do so.

TheRedneck

edit to add: I just re-read this post, and perhaps my opinions have not changed so much... I want peace and equality, the same thing I have always wanted. I just now believe this is not about such.


[edit on 17-11-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka

Wow.. I was with you all the way up to that last sentence.

That's why I said 'should' instead of 'can'... humans have a pretty good track record of not controlling their sexual urges.


I believe we should be able to, but to be honest, I have struggled with that in my life as well. So, good point.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I don't know why you would think that has something to do with getting back at religious people.

It is not about being anti-religion.

They just don't care about your religious beliefs.

They don't want other people's religious beliefs to effect their personal business.

And why should it?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

You have decided that because some people who are gay have expressed their negative feelings about organized religion, and against the tactics use by some organized religions in this fight, and another person who is not gay but very vocal has also expressed cynicism about religious institutions, that somehow, suddenly the agenda is now changed to "destroy religion"???
Come on now. Give me a break. You surely are not going to tell me that you are going to ignore all of the reasoned posts to date and react now only to the words of the few.
Because you have apparently done just that, it tells me that religion remains a sore spot for you somehow; i.e. maybe you are not so sure about it yourself (and who could blame you?), and furthermore, sex and sexuality are an area with lots of unresolved feelings (you sort of alluded to that too.)
You have shown yourself to be a reasoned man, as well as an emotional and caring one. I would say, just step back for a (figurative) moment and reflect on what is going on here and not react so quickly.
You can't claim to offer support one moment and then pull the rug out the next. Your so-called support equality is too fraught with "conditions" and self-serving agenda. This fight is not about you. It is not about religion. It is about the ability of gay couples to enjoy the fruits of marriage if they so choose.
- Period
The rest of you should stop getting in the way just to promote your dubious nefarious personal agenda.


[edit on 17-11-2008 by wayno]





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join