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.

 

'Gayby boom': Children of gay couples speak out

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Kevin_X2
 


Do you not understand English?

Let me explain it to you.

I meant that the groups are no different in the sense that they are also going to fight for their right to marry. They may have different sexual prefrences than homosexuals but they can use the same basis that homosexuals are using to change the definition of marriage to include their desired definition of marriage.

Some people need help with their oversensitivity issues.

Just for refererence. Here is what I said in context.



He is not comparing homosexuals to incest, pedophillia, and/or polygamy. He is saying that if you change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals then you open up the ability to allow these groups to redifine marriage to fit their cause. These groups are no different than those pushing for gay marriage. They would have the same right to marry as a homosexual couple, because they are all just sub groups of the population that have sexual/love connections in an abnormal manner, meaning outside of the norm of human behavior.


[edit on 29-6-2009 by grapesofraft]




posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Doesn't the majority of Gay people come from Heterosexual parents ?

Wouldn't this mean that the cause of somebody becoming gay is having to live with Heterosexual parents?

Would not this mean that everyone of us is at risk of being or becoming gay?



Those questions are never mentioned or talked about in the MSM because they know they all sound so ridiculous.

I'm Straight, Thats just the way I work .

I can't say I really agree with the homosexuality thing but if that is what 2 people want and they both want it then let it be....

I can't say I've met too many gay people but the ones I have met have come from a regular household with 2 heterosexual parents....

[edit on 29-6-2009 by LucidDreamer85]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 




This is just one more thing to tear apart the family and the country.


'tear apart' which families, in what country?

If you're talking about the USA, then I submit that there are plenty of heteros that are already doing a fine job of 'tearing apart' families.

Yet, the country has survived each and every time....

Most recently, just add Governor Sanford to the growing list.....



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


so, what your saying is... Homosexuals and Pedophiles are in the same group, so can thus use the same argument (as they are both equally sick and perverse) to meet their horrible sinful ends? because i dont know how you interpret yourself, but thats what you said. you DIRECTLY compared gay marriage to the marriage of children and adults, thus you directly compared pedophiles with gays.

When really, theres absolutely nothing to compare

gays + marriage = pedophiles + marriage
gays = pedophiles + marriage - marriage
therefore:
pedophiles = gays
...thats what you said. get it?

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Kevin_X2]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


nice points luciddreamer, those are entirely true and probably hard to swallow for some members



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


When you said: "if you change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals then you open up the ability to allow these groups to redifine marriage to fit their cause." 'Their' meaning those who practice: "incest, pedophillia, and/or polygamy". Thus comparing the two. By this reasoning, no one should be allowed to marry or raise children, as it will open the door to every other group. Just my take on the logic being used.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kevin_X2
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


so, what your saying is... Homosexuals and Pedophiles are in the same group, so can thus use the same argument (as they are both equally sick and perverse) to meet their horrible sinful ends? because i dont know how you interpret yourself, but thats what you said. you DIRECTLY compared gay marriage to the marriage of children and adults, thus you directly compared pedophiles with gays.

When really, theres absolutely nothing to compare


Seriously you need to go to an eye doctor and get the oversensitivity removed from them.

Did the whole gay agenda crowd take lessons from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on how to twist peoples words into some sort of racist or sexist comment?

Here if it makes you feel better to hear those words I will say them, even though it is not what I meant and only a retarded person would interpret that from what I said.

Here you go... Yeah gay people and pedophiles are exactly the same. They all hang out together with their zoophile buddies and rape children and animals. There I gave you what you are dying to hear. Hope you are happy now.

Even though that is not what I meant. I just did it so you could get your jollies and feel right. Not everyone against gay marriage hates homosexuals, but keep it up and maybe one day it will be true.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by grapesofraft]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


It most certainly does!!! Stable home versus the strained mess we call the Foster Care system.... No brainer!!!



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Well I will reply to you since you actually make sense. Here is the logic.

1. Marriage was/is a religious institution meant for one man and one woman and has been that way forever.
2. Government decided to make marriage a legal thing.
3. If you change the legal definition of marriage even once to include anything but one man and one woman, then you open it up to be redifined based on the whims of society and/or a certain groups political clout
4. This is why I think the government should just have civil unions for everyone, and leave marriage to be a religious thing before marriage just becomes an abomination.
5. Marriage was meant to create a family unit for raising children, because it is best for a child to have a father and a mother.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by grapesofraft]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


alright, then lets hear you say what you really mean without offending countless groups of people and associating homosexuality with sexual deviance? What is this englightening message that i missed? Because all i hear is "gays shouldnt get married because one day in the distant future some freaks might be abel to get away with all the disgusting and socially unacceptable things they want?

if you dont see how you are portraiting gays in an extremely shockingly offensive light, then you are stubborn as a mule with the brains to boot.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
4. This is why I think the government should just have civil unions for everyone, and leave marriage to be a religious thing before marriage just becomes an abomination.


OK, this I can agree with (well, except for the abomination part). If all were considered and called civil unions, then we would all have the same civil rights. As I stated in a previous post, no one is asking for special rights, just equal rights!



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kevin_X2



I have said what I wanted to say, you are just incapable of hearing it for whatever reason.

So lets say they REDIFINE marriage to include gay couples. What is the legal basis for doing that? Because gay people think they have a right to redifine marriage or because gayness is genetic? What is the reasoning behind redifining it? Answer that and I will then give you my answer.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by grapesofraft]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


Please...


I've raised my nephew since he was two weeks old. His mother's love amounted to abandoning him to search for other men. Whom has raised him you ask? That would be my brother, me, my partner. Even today she wants very little to do with him and has suggested my brother or myself take him. Diapers, doctor's appointments, skinned knees, fishing, karate, basketball, school all of that we have already done.

As for the bond thing well, he is not bonded to his mother at all (her choice). Whom is he bonded to? That would be my brother, me, my partner, my parents. Perhaps it would have been better though to have left him with her so she can drag him from hotel to hotel in her pursuit of her next male hookup?



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Staringintoinfinity
I never said that the ability to produce offspring has anything to do with good parenting.

What I implied is that the poster was making this argument to show that homosexuality is ok. I never said it wasn't ok, I said it wasn't natural. My basis for that opinion is that every creature on earth has the ability to reproduce itself.

I then went on to say that people shouldn't be discriminated against because of sexual preference. Meaning just because someone's gay, shouldn't keep them from having the same rights as everyone else.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]

[edit on 28-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]


I don't understand this "It's not natural" argument. In what factory are the millions of gays and lesbians of the world being mass produced? When you say its not natural what do you really mean? Each and every gay on the face of the planet is a natural product of child birth.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Yeah I get the equal rights part and I am not saying marriage would be an abomination just because they let gay people marry. The thing that is dangerous about making marriage redifinable is that then the polygamists, pedophiles, zoophiles, etc will then use this as a stepping stone to redifine marriage to include them. By the time you get somebody marrying their dog, I would call that making marriage an abomination.

I think it is fine to give people the right to share healthcare and pass posessions upon the death of one of them, etc...

[edit on 29-6-2009 by grapesofraft]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   


1. Marriage was/is a religious institution meant for one man and one woman and has been that way forever.


-forever? i dont know about that. laws often change WITH society, and adhere to new social norms



2. Government decided to make marriage a legal thing.


-so, if they were to decide that again whats the problem?



3. If you change the legal definition of marriage even once to include anything but one man and one woman, then you open it up to be redifined based on the whims of society and/or a certain groups political clout


-yeah? do you not like democracy? because if you dont like america you can geyytoouuut



4. This is why I think the government should just have civil unions for everyone, and leave marriage to be a religious thing before marriage just becomes an abomination.


-an abomination to you mabey. I dont understand how you see marriage suddenly becoming a horrible thing. you probably wont even be alive when marriage changes again, so stop complaining about what the future wants



5. Marriage was meant to create a family unit for raising children, because it is best for a child to have a father and a mother.


-is it now? who are you to say whats "best" for children? mabey we would all be better off without parents, or raised by wolves? thanks for the hearsay, but it doesnt work in this forum

try being logical when making such a big deal of urself

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Kevin_X2]

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Kevin_X2]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Kevin_X2
 




yeah? do you not like democracy? because if you dont like america you can geyytoouuut


If it were left to democracy their probably would never be gay marriage. I mean if it cannot pass in California, how would it pass in the Bible Belt.

Really I am done with you. You are just a waste of my time. You really need to get some help though.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 



The thing that is dangerous about making marriage redifinable is that then the polygamists, pedophiles, zoophiles, etc will then use this as a stepping stone to redifine marriage to include them.



That's a specious argument, grapes, and you know it!

Just blatherings out of the religious "wrongs" handbook of "How To Stir Up the Flock". Subtitled: 'with ridiculous arguments to further our agenda'

Frankly, I think ALL "marriage" should be abolished! How's that? What is it good for, anyway? Making the man's net worth drop 50% after the divorce, that's all!

Edit to add smilies for emphasis:

zoophiles and pedophiles....get a grip!!! Pull yourself back into reality!!!



[edit on 6/29/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


I know that this post was not aimed at me, but let me give you a good reason why gay couples want the right to marry.

I had two very close friends who were together for over twenty years. One of them had been disowned by his family when he came out. No contact for over twenty years. He was told by both his parents and his siblings that he was 'dead to them' (very religious family). One day he had a massive stroke and went into a coma. Because they were not a recognized couple by the state, his family was the next of kin. They gave strict orders to the hospital that "that faggot boyfriend of his or any of his faggot friends are not allowed to visit". They also did not come to his bedside and three weeks later he died alone. Luckily, his partner was left everything is his will, but the family still contested the will to get half the house they owned together. He had to take a second mortgage out to pay the legal fees to defend the will. Had they been allowed to marry, or enter into a civil union as you suggested, then the family would have had no rights to do this, and his partner would not have died alone.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Well I will reply to you since you actually make sense. Here is the logic.

1. Marriage was/is a religious institution meant for one man and one woman and has been that way forever.

Wrong, the puritans that came to North America were shocked at the "two-spirit couples in some tribes

2. Government decided to make marriage a legal thing.

Obviously

3. If you change the legal definition of marriage even once to include anything but one man and one woman, then you open it up to be redifined based on the whims of society and/or a certain groups political clout

It was redefined before to exclude "two-spirts" from the native tribes. Some tribes have re-opened marriages to two spirits abandoning their Christian brainwashing.

4. This is why I think the government should just have civil unions for everyone, and leave marriage to be a religious thing before marriage just becomes an abomination.

Great, if they allow it to be a full on benefits regardless of region etc. We call our relationship "A joining" because marriage has such a bad reputation.

5. Marriage was meant to create a family unit for raising children, because it is best for a child to have a father and a mother.

Unless the father or mother is abusive, do not want children, not capable of caring for children, they die and relatives take over responsibility. Or is it better they sit in an orphanage until 18?

[edit on 29-6-2009 by grapesofraft]



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join