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.


A notice to those who oppose or have a problem with the Gay Rights Movement

page: 36
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by passenger

Well, I don't know about anybody else, but I have a daughter and three grandsons (and counting... still wants a girl), so I guess that makes me normal now! Whew, that's a relief! Dude, you win. I tire of this debate.

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:11 AM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Yes, it does.

Look, eliminate all the emotion and feeling and the civil rights and other claptrap.

Let's take an example: the lowest plankton, bacteria, fungus, whatever...
You cannot deny that that little speck has 3 motivators. It eats, it moves and it reproduces. That's it. Everything else is ancillary. If it doesn't do those things then it is not normal - period.

All emotion and higher thought aside, if you have accomplished these 3 functions then YES; you are normal. All other proclivities and actions otherwise are a matter of personal, or culturally defined, choice.

P.S. I'm sort of saddened you gave up like that. But congrats on the children and those to come!!! That is the only real afterlife we will ever have and you achieved it!

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:37 AM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Do you know why this trick is played on man kind? Do you know why people are being groomed to accept homosexual behavior? Do you know why our children are being exposed to this type of behavior?

Because it worked so well in the past. Why trash a program that still has so many teeth?

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:46 AM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

I find it odd that you would post a thread that basically is an expectation for people to treat gay people with respect when I just read something you posted to a Christian.

I am not personally against homosexuals, in my mind you have all of the same rights as I do (which is systematically becoming closer to none); however, I also feel that atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and every other group also have these same rights and also deserve respect and understanding of their beliefs.

How hypocritical is it to expect others to respect your beliefs when you do not respect theirs? This just does not seem to follow a logical thought progression in my mind.

Don't get me wrong, I am not slandering you in any way for being a homosexual if that is in fact the case. What I am saying is that you wish to receive acceptance, yet you offer no acceptance to others with opposing beliefs.

I would sincerely like to believe that all homosexuals do not share this hypocritical perspective on life; however, if in fact they do, perhaps, respect and acceptance is not yet deserved. From my personal perspective, you personally have not yet evolved enough yet to deserve acceptance as you have not yet learned to give acceptance to others. Just a thought. So I guess, to quote someone I read a post from on another thread (that would be you), "You might as well put me on your (foe) list now, we are not going to see eye to eye on probably anything."

To the rest of the homosexual community; I apologize for anything you might have interpreted as disrespectful to your community it was not directed at your community but at an individual who does not give to others what he expects from them. I have no hatred or disrespect towards your community, only for hypocrites no matter what community or walk of life they come from.

And just to clarify, his post was not directed at me and I did not even respond on that thread at all, it just bothered me when I saw a person on one thread practicing exclusionary behavior and then starting one of their own expecting inclusive behavior.

[edit on 7/16/2009 by DarrylGalasso]

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 03:52 AM
reply to post by passenger

A rabbit with black fur or white fur is always possibly viable and therefore normal. It may prove to be a localized infirmity but the possibility exists for it to survive and reproduce dependent upon the particular circumstances of the environment. A rabbit that cannot or does not follow one of the other rules, e.g. eat, is doomed to extinction. (In the case of reproduction in the larger sense that its genetic material, and by extension the species, will not be continued).

Being black or blue eyed or serving in the military is not a barrier to the 3 basic laws of life. Being queer is. You are the one that cannot see beyond your emotional (albeit entirely human and good ) reactions. But the simple fact remains: homosexuality is a non-productive (literally and metaphorically) aberration in the gene pool. It is akin to being a blind rabbit. Blind rabbits only make food for foxes. They do not enhance the rest of rabbitdom.

I still defy you to prove otherwise. Refute any of the 3 rules with an example of any successful species that does so and then I will accept the assertion that being gay is "normal".

Lol....well let's see. All gay people are born with reproductive systems. They have the potential to reproduce. Some do and some don't. Some gay men have kids with gay women as they desire kids but have no wish to have a sexual relationship with a woman. Some gay women have kids from gay or straight men. Most use insemination methods other than the blindingly obvious means. Why would you assume a blind rabbit could not reproduce, just like the disabled you have exampled also? So, all gay people CAN reproduce if they so desire. 'Enhancing the rest of 'rabbitdom' in a sophisticated and overpopulated world might indeed involve NOT reproducing in some blind religiously indoctrinated and physical world revering reality of one's own.
Indeed all people have the ability to hunt and kill their own food....most go to restaurants, hardly natural...but part of human progression. That does not mean they are useless members of their species.

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by DarrylGalasso

OK, now let's just wait here a second. What thread, replying to what post concerning what topic??? Without the context of the post you are allegedly accusing me of intolerance, it is unfair for you to make that assessment. Secondly, I never claimed to be tolerant of all things. I am intolerant of injustice, I am intolerant of ignorance, I am intolerant of inequality, I am intolerant of being forced to live my life according to the rules of a religion that is not my own. The quote you gave was from a post on a thread in the "Introductions" forum and the reference of the 'foe list' was tongue in cheek, as the OP made it quite clear that he/she is a strict Christian, and I tend to be the opposition in religious threads. The thread was later moved to the appropriate forum as it blossomed into a religious debate rather than an introduction thread. If you are referring to my later posts in that thread, my responses were quite appropriate to the posts I was replying to, as the OP turned into a "my God is the only God! If you don't believe in my God, then you don't believe in any God, and you must live by my God's rules!". As stated before, I don't have a tolerance for that type of position.

Life is full of things we cannot and should not tolerate. This does not preclude that there are things that we tend to be intolerant of but shouldn't be. I accept and tolerate the right of everyone to believe any way they wish. I will not accept or tolerate the imposition of those beliefs on those who do not believe! BIG DIFFERENCE!

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:29 PM

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by heliosprime

Nice dancing, but the wrong music.

I'll ask you more directly then, heliosprime.

1. Do you approve of slavery? The Holy Bible has tenents in both Exodus and Leviticus for how daughters and slaves of "strangers" should be bought and sold.

Yes as long as the rules are followed as set for by GOD! Perhaps it is you who should understand my statement.......

2. Do you believe the following are offenses that should cause a person to be stoned to death: trimming hair/beard, adultery, sleeping with relatives, taking the Lord's name in vain, fairlure to observe the Sabbath.

Trimming hair-wrong understnading on YOUR part.

Adultery-Follow the rules for conviction-YES

Sleeping with relatives-again follow the rules for conviction-YES

Taking the Lord's name in vain--again follow the rules for conviction-YES

Failure to observe the sabbaths-"ditto". Knowing the true sabbath, rejecting it is death.......

But, as usual don't jump to the punishment until the rules for conviction are met. Witnesses, Judges, etc, etc.

3. Do you conduct regular burnt offerings, and if so, are you always certain that the altar is of non-hewn stone?

Burnt offerings went out with Jesus, he became the passover lamb. He became the final sacrifice to God for YOUR sins and mine.

All of these things can be found in the Holy Bible. The "abomination" thing you seem to like to repeat, that's in Leviticus, as is most of items 1-3 above.

Do you or do you not approve of or condone the things? If you do, then fine, at least you are consistent. If you do not, then what gives you the unmitigated GALL to select just two passages and apply them to judge other human beings?

Can you not see the inconsistency of this? It's not just a misunderstanding. It's IN the Holy Bible. Many Christians feel that Jesus changed these old precepts that were adopted in Moses' time.

So. Short question. Approve or not? I'll be happy to give you exact books and passages of the Bible, or you can look back at the first post I made to you.

I'm not trying to rock your faith, friend. Just jog your thinking

[edit to take a little of the edge off it.

[edit on 15/7/09 by argentus]

My "faith" is beyond your "rocking capability" perhaps it is you who needs to research the bible since these "issues" you raise are pretty silly and typically childish nonsense for the ignorant.

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:37 PM

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by heliosprime

Sorry, but that made me throw up in my mouth! Slavery??? Public Executions??? Holy crap!!! Didn't you people learn anything that Jesus taught??? Frak me running!

As to the last line, good luck on carrying out that sentence. We're not all 'girly men'. And with the hate you carry in your heart, you will never enter that 'Paradise' you envision. I'm fairly certain it's a 'No Hate' zone.

It is not I who hate homosexuality but GOD. And please show me where in the scriptures that Jesus made clean a homosexual? The scriptures cover pretty much everything else.

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:30 PM
reply to post by heliosprime

Appreciate the reply Helio, truly.

My "faith" is beyond your "rocking capability" perhaps it is you who needs to research the bible since these "issues" you raise are pretty silly and typically childish nonsense for the ignorant.

Typical childish nonsense for the ignorant. I could not agree with you more. These are passages in the Holy Bible that people use to persecute others. Remember judgement and who it belongs to?

I read and understand my Bible, Helio. Thank you for acknowledging that you condone a death penalty via stoning for the sins I outlined. You have my respect, for what that's worth, because you are consistent, for the most part.

It's a blessed thing that the majority of the world doesn't enforce such antiquated laws. I agree that adultery, for example, is a sinful practice. Stoning to death? c'mon.

Have enjoyed talking with you, even though we are at odds with each other. You help me understand the hurdles the human race will have to overcome in order to forgive each other and ourselves for the sins we perpetrate on one another.

Prideful lot, aren't we?

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:42 AM
Visit here:

Some very great points and observations!!

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:47 AM

Originally posted by herno74
Visit here:

Some very great points and observations!!

I opened it and the first thing I read was it saying I am immoral because I support gay people. Everything on there looks like a bunch of preaching (even though it says its not about religion, it really is), not everyone is a christian/catholic. I find it hilarious how he says his argument isn't about religion, but then the entire website is full of religious stuff and bible babble.

No one is going to tell me what is immoral and no one is going to tell me what to teach my kids. It is up to me as a parent to decide what I think is right and wrong, and I will ALWAYS teach my daughter that there is nothing wrong with gay people or people who are different than her. Hell, shes already "different" than most kids because shes half black half white, and that difference and uniqueness is a beautiful thing. I live in a diverse place and I will always expose my kids to that diversity, because being diverse and different is what makes humans beautiful.

But like I said, everyone is not christian or religious, so those little morality "rules" don't apply to us.

Also whoever made that site has big problems, spending all that time speaking on something you hate. And he isn't spreading his "message" because I'm sure the only people who read and agree with that site are already bigots like him.

I will never understand why bigots and racists are so obsessed with the things they are supposedly against.


[edit on 17-7-2009 by jeasahtheseer]

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:04 AM

Originally posted by herno74
Visit here:

Some very great points and observations!!

It's a load of sanctimonious bullcrap, twisting facts of nature.

The design is male and female and in all of nature. The male has a sexual organ to give (+) and the female has a sexual organ to receive (-). That is design. One was designed to fit into the other. In other words, man had a design contrived by a Designer/God. So it is the same with people, animals, etc. It is obvious to all but the rebellious that humans were so fashioned.

So ummm yeah... what about A-sexual creatures ?

Nice of the author to omit that little part of science because it contradicts his agenda. Also he doesn't mention how alot of animals in the world have been observed performing homosexual acts, for pleasure.

But yeah it all goes against nature and fact when religion has its say

Religion, now that is not natural, an invisible crutch..

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:38 AM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

I'm strongly opposed to state-sanctioned gay marriage. There is no reason the state should butt its nose into anyone's personal relationships whether they are either homosexual or heterosexual. That is a blatant violation of privacy. There is no reason the state should be handling a religious issue like marriage. I don't understand why so many people want our government handling our personal ceremonies.

Its annoying that so many gay people want one more oversight by the government. It just goes to show that the vast majority of government interference in our personal lives is due to the people themselves and that instead of pointing at congress who are re-elected each and every time without failure, the blame needs to be pointed to your neighbor and probably you as well.

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by truthquest

I hate to break it to you, but the state already sanctions marriages. Try getting married without a state marriage license. ALL marriages have to be applied for and granted by the state, regardless of where they are done, and the person officiating the ceremony must be approved by the state, hence the "by the powers granted to me by the state of ________, I now...". And when you can get married in a drive-thru chapel in Las Vegas, the whole religious 'sanctity' thing goes right out the window...

Nice try, but your argument is at best, flawed...

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 01:31 PM
Over the (many) years of my life I have met many gay folks. There is a term called trama bonding that depending on the age and maturity on the person being molested and the sex on the person molesting, the one being molested turns to or from the sex of the molester (isn't molesting a much nicer way to look at it then rape and abuse & torture). Granted a hundred or so gay and moslested friends is not a great sample but I consider 60% of female gays are from trauma bonding and 30% of the men (it's harder to get men to open up about being molested). If we didn't stop it from happening then we shouldn't get upset at the result. If we are not going to support their wellness and regrowth then we shouldn't attack what they do to keep their lives going.

An aside about NAMBLA - castrate them (from the neck up) would be a good start. Each one teach one (or more) takes on a whole new meaning.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:28 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts


posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 12:21 AM
This thread is sooooo gay. LOL, I actually heard a commercial criticizing people for using that phrase. What's wrong with that phrase, to have someone complain about it?

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:13 AM
I definitely have a problem with the gay rights movement, .... why is it so outrageously fantastic !!!

... also, there are issues with the movement claiming exclusive rights to the Jonas Brothers, ... but on behalf of my fellow hetero's, we'll let that one slide.

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:35 PM
reply to post by DaisyAnne

Our system is set up this way. If the Government puts something on the ballot that affects us all then we have a right to vote.
Now if that vote goes against one side, they should not be able to go to court after the fact and claim it violates their rights.

Fight that battle before it goes to vote, that is why we are a Republic, rule of law.

I have a child who is transgender, even the Homosexual community is cruel to them.

But if you have a right to be who you are then just be it. I have never been approached by a man saying, "Hi I am hetrosexual." We don't have hetro pride parades and we don't have block parties wewre we violate the lewdness laws in plain site of children, (San Francisco and Massachusetts).

Homosexuals have exsited in societies throught history, but Marriage was. until the after the civil war, a religious institution.
After the Civil War when blacks and whites wanted to intermarry, the legislators made it secular.

So if you want to marry under a secular law do so. But you cannot demand any religion to approve of your lifestyle, regardless of what it is, if it violates their beliefs.

Many in the Homosexual community want others to give up their rights for them.

If we can not find a win/win then all we will be left with is, I have more rights then you, and mine should be protected above yours.
This hurts us all.

Case in point the new HAte Crime law that will legalize pedophilia, is this what the homosexual community wants, the right to have sex with children?

Because of how many sexual predators are actually homosexual, this fuels peoples fears and conserns.
In fact a very prominent voice in the homosexual community believes in sex before 8 or its to late.

IF supporting homosexuality would put my child or any child at risk, I would say no.

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:49 PM
The whole debate between Gay Rights, and religious zealots/haters/yadda becoming antiquated.
I don't think that many older people realize just how much more accepted homosexuality is becoming. The kids that I have personally encountered in this day and age seem to be, in large part, much more willing and able to accept people who could potentially be deemed "Different" by many of us.

Linking homosexuality to deviant behavior/criminality is really grasping at straws. Granted, we are all entitled to our opinions...but re-enforcing those opinions with generalizations and supposed factual information is just plain ignorant.

top topics

<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in