Should we boycott gay businesses?, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 04:44 PM by Jim Scott

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Jim Scott
I added polygamy as an edit. That should help you.

Nope, doesn't help me. Doesn't help you either.

Would you agree that there is no reason to prohibit marriage between several men or several women?

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 04:44 PM by dalek

All this from a public admission of love between 2 men or 2 women and the same legal rights as a man and woman doing the same?.

Don't forget people the majority of the gay and religous community will maintain their own personal views on this subject and move on and worry about where the next mortgage payment comes from.

It is only the extremists on both sides that makes the headlines and it's you guys that are eating up the media feed with a big spoon.

Theres bigger problems in the world at the momment.

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 04:46 PM by blupblup

Originally posted by Jim Scott
reply to post by blupblup

If you don't mind, could we return to an intelligent discussion?

Could you point me in the direction of one?
Bigoted views, IMHO, are most certainly the opposite of intelligence.

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 04:47 PM by intrepid

Originally posted by Jim Scott
I added polygamy as an edit. That should help you.

Originally posted by intrepid

Nope, doesn't help me. Doesn't help you either.

Would you agree that there is no reason to prohibit marriage between several men or several women?

You're really reaching now. First you equate gays to pedophiles now polygamists. What's next? Beastiality?

Edit: Trying to fix this BB code.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by intrepid]

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 04:51 PM by Jim Scott

reply to post by intrepid

Thanks for your comments. I do take them seriously, and consider what you may be thinking, even though this medium is difficult at best.

Pedophilia is a reach, but polygamy is not that much of a reach. There are thousands of practitioners in the US and many more in the rest of the world. They consider it their right. I would not be so quick to dismiss the polygamy, and mention any association at all with ugly beastiality.

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:04 PM by cropmuncher

Originally posted by tator3
WE ARE EVERYWHERE!!! Maybe even at your backdoor.

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:09 PM by imdeceived

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:23 PM by grey580

Reply to post by imdeceived

This isn't Nazi Germany and it's not a crime to be gay!
Don't equate pedophilia with homosexuality please.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:29 PM by Jim Scott

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:30 PM by Jim Scott

reply to post by grey580

Pedophilia is a reach, but polygamy is not that much of a reach. There are thousands of practitioners in the US and many more in the rest of the world. They consider it their right. I would not be so quick to dismiss the polygamy, and mention any association at all with ugly beastiality.

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:37 PM by Merriman Weir

Just as I think I couldn't read anything more messed-up on ATS, I prove myself wrong yet again.

Regarding the people who are in favour of boycotting gay businesses, or are against gay marriage or even have one issue or another with gays: I wonder how many of them have friends that they'll go to the games with, or have a beer with, work with and so on that despite their marriages, their children and other heterosexual 'trappings' are actually gay. Friends who privately hate themselves and their lives because of this #ty world where people equate love between two consensual adults with paedophilia, bestiality or some kind of 'abominable' thing.

Statistically, it's more likely than homophobes think.

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:55 PM by slimpickens93

Regardless of your views on homosexuality, look at the facts here.

Those people who voted were exercising their legal right to voice their opinion, while not breaking the law in the process.

Some of the gay community on the other hand, are likely guilty of many crimes in their attacks against those who voted or speak out unfavorably to them incuding trespassing, hate crimes, conspiracy, slander, property damage.

Those involved should be held accountable for breaking the law and charged, tried, and sentenced if applicable.

Boycotting is not illegal. Infringing on another's lawfully recognized rights is.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by slimpickens93]

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 06:03 PM by angel of lightangelo

reply to post by Jim Scott

I have to assume from your OP that you are straight. What gay businesses does a straight person frequent that stopping would make a difference. I cannot say for sure but around here, most gay bars and the little gay part of town, are mainly frequented by gay people. Are you really suggesting that straight people teach gay people a lesson by not giving them business they would not be giving them anyway?

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 06:06 PM by dalek

reply to post by Merriman Weir

I totally agree, I made a reasonable point a few minutes earlier that was ignored in the hyperbole between a few members and a supermoderator no less in the rush to quote the opponents and ridicule.

Its bad when reasonable argument is trashed in favor of soundbites , but i guess thats the media example and ATS is not impervious to it.

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 06:08 PM by dalek

Originally posted by slimpickens93

Some of the gay community on the other hand, are likely guilty of many crimes in their attacks against those who voted or speak out unfavorably to them incuding trespassing, hate crimes, conspiracy, slander, property damage.

Those involved should be held accountable for breaking the law and charged, tried, and sentenced if applicable.

Boycotting is not illegal. Infringing on another's lawfully recognized rights is.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by slimpickens93]

can you please provide sources

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 07:08 PM by bloodcircle

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 07:25 PM by triplesod

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Today's news shows gay activists pressuring the Mormons.

www.foxnews.com...

Tomorrow, maybe the blacks and hispanics, or maybe your business or your neighbors. They railroaded one of our best entertainment industry persons in Sacramento right out of his 25 year career when they found out he was for Prop 8. They also interrupt meetings here of anyone they deem is anti-gay by coming to the meeting and making so much noise that no speakers can talk.

I hate to suggest lowering myself to these standards, but they are effectively intimidating select groups. For example, the media is distinctly pro-gay, as is the entertainment industry in general.

I consider it very unfriendly they way the "act up" against others, spreading claims and using buzz-words like "homophobic" to get their way.

What do you think of the idea that turnabout is fair play? What if we were to identify the gay businesses and businesses that support gays and boycott them? Seems fair to me, what do you think?

This would be a particularly effective time to boycott a business, since the economy is having a tough time anyway. Maybe the gay movement could get a little friendlier if their livelihoods were threatened.

Would you consider boycotting black business when a tiny minority of the Black Panthers were fighting their cause with violence? Or what about animal cruelty? Would you ignore cruelty to animals because of the tiny proportion of "activists" who bomb buildings and attack reception staff at the labs?

My point is, every single subculture and culture has breakway groups that are unappealing or simply wrong but they should not be used as an excuse for bigotry or generalisation and prejudice.

No matter how transparent your agenda is.

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 07:28 PM by triplesod