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.


The Gay Agenda -- You Can't Be Serious?

page: 25
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 12:17 AM

Originally posted by Annee

Answer the damn question.

And quit side stepping.

I would accept them and then I would go on a rampage against anyone who didn't accept them.

posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 12:21 AM

Originally posted by psyko45

Those negative thoughts have changed into tolerance for the things that may bother me due to instilled dogmas, brainwashing, operant conditioning etc,etc.

Tolerance is far from acceptance of normal occurrence.

But baby steps are better then no steps at all - IMO

posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 12:23 AM

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Annee

Answer the damn question.

And quit side stepping.

I would accept them and then I would go on a rampage against anyone who didn't accept them.

Now that is truly the answer I expected from you.

Integrity is integrity - - - even when camouflaged.

posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 10:43 AM

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
reply to post by craig732

It's up to the parents to hand out that condom. .... The responsibility of parenting is up to the parent. Not the state.

But the problem is that many parents don't give their kids condoms or talk to them about sex.

When I was growing up my parent's never gave me condoms or talked with me about sex. I was very lucky. I stuck my wee wee many places with no condom as a teen; I consider it miraculous that I never contrated a disease or got anyone pregnant.

It is irresponsible as a society to not have sex education and condoms available for everyone who is capable of making the decision to have sex.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by craig732]

posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 01:08 PM
If we have to see drivel like this posted, where are the pro-polygamy threads?

posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 01:13 PM
reply to post by thrustbucket

No one's been accusing the polyamory lobby of having an agenda, that's why the threads don't exist. My girlfriend and I certainly have an agenda though -- we hate gender norms hardcore.

posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 02:14 PM
The biggest purveyor of hate is the TPTB. They keep every section of society at odds with each other to keep us all off balance and Not focused on what we need to be. The Agenda came from the religious right, mainly from professor Dobson(focus on the family) and other, even more radical Christian groups than focus. When a fellow named Michael
Swift published an article called the Gay Manifesto which is not at all a welcome piece of scribe by the religious right, fundies, homophobs. etc. I believe that Michael swift was motivated, influenced, etc to write this so as to cause this whole situation that has grown like a fire properly fed with fuel and air to bring the heat to red hot. Heres the Agenda
It is my belief that most of what we call racism, homophobia, homo agenda, etc. etc is all a product of Mind control through media and occultist religious leaders that are owned by the NWO. This little piece of published writing was read into the congress so as to be on record and has served as a premise for the ignorant, that they might believe it of the entire gay community. Most Gays live their lives without even thinking of such tripe but just as easily as the ignorant believe premise of a militant gay community, so the Gay community believes the tripe about hate towards them that the same media hypes. People need to step back and quit getting so involved in the trees and take a look at the forest.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Barkster]

posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 09:45 AM
The Lord GOD !, Says Man Laying With Man Is An Abomination !
So It Would seen You have Made A Deal With Satan Not GOD !!
No Matter How You GAY'S Try To Justify Your Self, You Are breaking GOD'S Laws, & You Will BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY !!
ENJOY !!!!

posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 10:19 AM

Originally posted by DalMil54
The Lord GOD !, Says Man Laying With Man Is An Abomination !
So It Would seen You have Made A Deal With Satan Not GOD !!
No Matter How You GAY'S Try To Justify Your Self, You Are breaking GOD'S Laws, & You Will BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY !!
ENJOY !!!!

Aren't you breaking God's law also when you don't stone them to death?

posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 10:29 AM
reply to post by DalMil54

Or, God is not a vindictive bastard, and they get to live their afterlives in perfect harmony

Or, God doesn't exist, and you look pretty silly for judging people by the standard of an invisible friend

Or, God does exist, and doesn't like people like you judging other people, and you are the one who burns in hell for being so judgemental over people who have no ill-effect on you.

Take your pick!

posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 11:38 AM

Originally posted by DalMil54
The Lord GOD !, Says Man Laying With Man Is An Abomination !
So It Would seen You have Made A Deal With Satan Not GOD !!
No Matter How You GAY'S Try To Justify Your Self, You Are breaking GOD'S Laws, & You Will BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY !!
ENJOY !!!!

PS...judge not


posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 12:44 PM
Hi Conclusion

Why on earth would you be insistent on mis-quoting your so-called ‘scriptures’ from the error-infested King James Version of the ‘bible’?

Hint: even if it were based on solid MSS (which it is not), we don’t speak English that way any more (unless you have not noticed)…

I take it you CANNOT translate the Koine Greek for yourself, nor are you in any way fluent or conversant in PaleoHebrew or Aramaic from your inane comments you keep posting.

I get tired of always having to educate so many persons on these kinds of threads (i.e. seemingly for nothing) but I’ll offer you a bit of advice: take a Koine Greek Class then a PaleoHebrew Class so you can understand the texts that you are purporting to quote, since you are clearly stabbing in the dark without a clue as to what material you are actually handling.

For example, you did know (did you not?) that the so-called King james Version had several revisions in the year it was released (1611) due to several hundred printers errors as well as down right translation errors? Also that the text of the NT that was used was based soley on Codex Bezae Biglot (the D codex) and later conflated with Codex Alexandrinus ONLY? The translators had no knowledge of Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Ephraemi (C), Codex Washingtoniensis (W, or Freer Codex) or any of the papyri that we now have at our disposal, comprising 5446 Greek MSS, no two alike?

For the OLD TESTAMENT, the KJV only used the later Masoretic Tex from Leningrad (960 CE) which is pointed (vowelled) with a tradition from only one set of Rebbes (the Masoretes) from a Late Consonantal Text (we discovered texts 1000 years older among Caves 1-11 of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran that show up to a 17% difference in texts, counting letter for letter).

So the KJV is NOT an authorized scholarly text by any stretch to use to back up any claims of yours to historicity or even ‘theology’.
Apart of all of this textual mess, , some facts: e.g. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT R. YEHOSHUA BAR YOSEF THE GALILEAN NAZIR (Greek: ‘Iesous’) APART FROM his own SITZ IM LEBEN (‘setting in life’) e.g. especially the uncomfortable FACT of his DAVIDDIC BLOOD and the FACT OF THE BRUTAL 1st Century ROMAN OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE which he sought to overthrow with his own version of a Zionist Kingdom of the Jews (‘Kingdom of Heaven’): witness his re-referencing specific OCCUPYING LANGUAGE quoting Genesis chapter 15 :16 (‘The times of [the Amorites] are fulfilled’…).

These factoids form the basis for the historical situation (sitz im leben) for ‘Iesous;’ s which you seem woefully ignorant of in your posts: esp the fact that this person was a Zionist racist Rabbi with Seditionist tendencies who believed he was living in the Last Days when the ‘Jewish Messiah was to save Israel from its oppressors’ (see the ‘Road to Emmaeus’ story in the 3rd canonical Greek gospel, ‘Luke’, whoever he was)

Let’s go back and review some JUDAEAN REBELLION TIME LINES, shall we?

The so-called Maccabbean Revolt (c. BCE 163) which wrested (with Roman help, oddly) Jerusalem from Syrian Greek Occupation(Antiochus IV had converted the city into a pagan city-state) was an armed military victory for the Judaeans (perceived) headed up by WARRIOR PRIESTS, e.g. the sons of Matathiah ben Hasmon (one of his sons was called Judah the Hammer or Judas Maccabeaus) but his family seized control of the high priesthood after the Revolt, hence the Hashmonean Dynasty of High Priests who after 104 BCE (with the forced conversion and annexation of the Galilee and Idumaea following the ascension of John ‘Hyrcanus’) began to call themselves KINGS as well (‘YHWH says: You shall be unto me a Kingdom of Priests’).

One hundred years of semi-autonomous ‘rule’ in Judaea came to an end with the Invasion of Rome under the Roman General ‘ Pompeius’in BCE 63, who raided the Temple Treasury & stripped the temple of its gold & valuables to melt down to pay his army.

100 years after Invasion of Rome (and its subsequent Brutal Roman Occupation) in 36 CE there seems to have been a kind of Anniversary of the Invasion of the Romans under the guise of a REBELLION (see the 2nd Greek Canonical Gospel ‘Mark’ whoever he was) chapter 14 with the Bar-Abba story

(‘Now Bar Abba was a Seditionist who was arrested for rapine DURING THE INSURRECTION – which the gospel mentions then carefully ‘forgets’ --since this Iesous the Nazir was also caught up in it, having armed his OWN followers at the same event, for which he was summarily tried and executed for armed sedition against the Maiestas of Rome (technically the LEX MAIESTATIS, or NO KING BUT CAESAR law, which carried the death penalty).

70 years after the Death of Herod in 4 BCE when Judae passed into DIRECT Roman Rule i.e. in 66 CE, the Roman Occupied Judaeans formented another REBELLION (the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome, of which the ‘Jewish Turncoat Historian Josephus' played an active role and later wrote about it in his War of the Jews (which came out in Greek in the 80s CE with Roman Flavian patronage); an estimated 900,000 Judaeans and Galileans lost their lives (in the years 66-72 CE), & the canonical Greek Gospels were written (and edited) AFTER the Jews had LOST the WAR.

100 years following THE ARMED REBELLION-INSURRECTION of 36 CE in which R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir was implicated (see Luke 22:35-48) there was another Rebellion in 136 CE (the socalled 2nd Jewish Revolt against Rome, under Bar Kokhba, another Daviddic Pretender who lost his life in trying to cast off the Roman Yoke in 137 CE.)

Here is a Timeline in which R. Yehoshua’s Rebellion forms the core:

163BCE – Macabbean Revolt against Syrian Greek Rule– the Beginning of semi Autonomous Rule of Hashmonean Priest Kings in Judaea

63 BCE – Roman Army invades Palestine / Judah (Pompey) – Roman Occupation begins.

36 CE – The 100th anniversary of the Roman Invasion – Armed Rebellion under R. Yehoshua (executed)

136 CE – the 200th Anniversary of the Roman Invasion – Armed Rebellion under R. Bar Kokhba (Kosiba) - 2nd Failed REVOLT

These neat 100-year intervals ARE TOO EXACT TO BE MERE CO-INCIDENCE – all of them involving military armed rebellion; hence background to Luke chapter 22:35-45

Didn’t your mommy or your Sunday School Teacher ever review these little ‘armed sedition’ factoids with you when you were learning your Bible verses?

posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 11:21 PM
This sort of reflects my feelings on this issue:

A father watched his young daughter playing in the garden. He smiled as he reflected on how sweet and pure his little girl was. Tears formed in his eyes as he thought about her seeing the wonders of nature through such innocent eyes. Suddenly she just stopped and stared at the ground. He went over to her to see what work of God had captured her attention.

He noticed she was looking at two spiders mating.
“Daddy, what are those two spiders doing?” she asked..
“They're mating,” her father replied..
“What do you call the spider on top?” she asked.
“That is a Daddy Longlegs,” her father answered.
“So, the other one is a Mommy Longlegs?” the little girl asked.
As his heart soared with the joy of such a cute and innocent question he replied,
“No dear. Both of them are Daddy Longlegs.”
The little girl, looking a little puzzled, thought for a moment, then lifted her foot
and stomped them flat. “Well,” she said, “that may be OK in California,
but we're not having any of that crap in Ohio !

posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 08:05 AM
There are a number of gay people in my life that I love. This doesn't mean I agree with what they are doing though. To me it is something that just isn't natural. Now I know gay people would say something different, but that is my opinion. Truth is, just like gays have opinions, so do people that are straight. I have had to listen to gays say that liking the opposite sex is not normal, that being gay is normal. See, in this post the only thing you refer to is all the heterosexuals that judge the homosexuals..... well my friend, it goes the other way. It is not all everybody elses fault. All you gays need to look at yourselves as well. On top of that, when the gay people in my life are around me, they show some respect. They don't huge and kiss and act a fool infront of the children that are around and they don't feel like they have to make a point to everybody all the time, like a lot of gays (from what I see) seem to do.

posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 12:01 PM
Hi Victoria

I know JUST what you mean.

As you know, Leonardo da Vinci was showing a little too much 'attention' with his cute male model Jacopo Saltarelli in April of 1476 in Florence, and was thrown into prison for it.

The charge was 'sogdomia' with a male prostitute. 60 days.


I wonder if we should throw breeders into the clapper if they touch each other in public...

So un-natural to persons of the callibre of Leonardo, don't you agree?

posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by Sigismundus

That was funny. Maybe not funny to Leonardo - but still funny.

I can not even respond to posts like that. Makes you wonder if some posters actually read what they write.

posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 02:39 PM

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
It's common sense Spartan King.

I disagree, it is not common sense, it is isolationism.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Mixed race relationships are generally not accepted by the masses. Why would I encourage my children to enter into a relationship where they and thier offspring would be subjected to racism?

I do realize inter-racial marriages and relationship are not accepted, I've seen just how ignorant people are in sharing their thoughts on it, no directed at anyone.

I never said you should encourage it, specifically, but I do not see the point in discouraging it completely, I guess I would take a different tact then you.

I would teach my children about the difficulties of it and teach them exactly what they would be up against, not sugar-coating it, and explain that it will be a difficult road if they choose that path, but it is not impossible, and that I would love them no matter what.

That I would always be there for them, no matter their choices, relationships, and lifestyles.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Yeah it's forbidden by me, for my offspring. I have thier best interests in mind.

I agree with you having their best interests at heart but the method of delivery is how you and I disagree, completely, you choose to shelter them, to stymie free-will.

I choose to encourage free-will, and how to out-think ignorance.

I think inside the box, outside the box, and smash the box and start over.

I was taught to never run away, stand and fight, not necessarily always with violence.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
What you think I'm raising androids here?

It sure sounds like it to me, no offense meant, but isolation of choices, is programmed beliefs.

That's essentially things most of us on ATS rail against our Government for.

My post which got you to ask about androids was meant that your children will make choices, regardless of your wishes, sometimes in spite of them, because children do that.

They will test their boundaries with you, been there done that with my own parents.

I think just about every child has done that, if not I see that as strange behavior.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
So what are you trying to say here Spartan King?
[edit on 27-2-2010 by In nothing we trust]

About A.I.D.S.?

That it was a created disease, bio-engineered, in a Government facility.

Nothing more than that.

Well, that it was seen as a method of population control, and sick that they would do it.

posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 03:47 AM
"You can dislike the practice as much as you please, however you are bound by your religion to love everybody, regardless of what they do, it's God's job to judge. You are no more entitled to judge me for my lifestyle, than I am entitled to judge you."

That is the most intelligent thing I have ever heard a homosexual say, ever, anywhere, at any time. And having stated it, you will have to live by it. But where you use an example fo God in your defense you also need to heed his words and you clearly haven't.
I do like the way you use a marriage anolgy of havign a husband, I think it's hilarious that the very community trying to be different still has to try to be normal by being 'married'. You see we all desire the right things even if we are wrong.

posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:54 AM

Originally posted by daggyz

I do like the way you use a marriage anolgy of havign a husband, I think it's hilarious that the very community trying to be different still has to try to be normal by being 'married'. You see we all desire the right things even if we are wrong.

The correct analogy would be "Right to Marry".

It is about Equal Rights - - - not about someone's concept of the "right thing".

posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 09:27 AM
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

You should try out-thinking your own ignorance. AIDS was not created in a lab. HIV is the virus, AIDS is the syndrome. And, before you say, HIV wasn't created in a lab, either. The origins of HIV are not fully known, but by simple tracing of the disease, and looking at the different strains around the world, it's very clear when and where it started (West-Central Africa, in the late 19th/early 20th century).

new topics

top topics

<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in