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.

 

Anti-gay homophobes - what country would you choose?

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Schrödinger
 


Soon gay men will be wanting equal treatment like women and want to bare children just like them. When the day man is able to have children..............I plan on investing my time in a terrorist group.




posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


It is a joke really, it is like saying that you aren't treated equally because someone is smarter than you, demanding that you a: make yourself smarter or b: make the person that is smarter than you dumber!

Or.

If someone have a better job than you, you would be demanding his job, or a job of equal pay and benefits, because it is unfair, that someone better qualified and educated than you, get a better salary!

Or.

Single men or women that cannot find a spouse demanding that the community supplies them with a partner, because it is unequal that someone else gets to have a long life relationship, while others have to live alone.

Or.

A person demanding the right to access prostitution, because they cannot get laid on their own! It is unequal for someone to have sex while others goes without.

Or.

Love, equal love for everyone, if you do not have someone in your life that loves you, you are being discriminated.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 
The man used the word, 'hopefully'. He said that hopefully, they would grow up like thier mother and father. Yet, you go off on a homosexual tangeant and ramble about blah, blah, blah in an attempt to belittle him. Stop being so heterophobic/defensive and relax before you read.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrispyB
reply to post by maybereal11
 
The man used the word, 'hopefully'. He said that hopefully, they would grow up like thier mother and father. Yet, you go off on a homosexual tangeant and ramble about blah, blah, blah in an attempt to belittle him. Stop being so heterophobic/defensive and relax before you read.



The man is basically saying he is raising his son to be straight.

It doesn't work that way. But he does sound like a loving father - - that would love his son no matter what.

------------------------------------------------------

If he had said he was raising his son to be gay. Would you have the same reaction?

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Annee]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
well glad finally somebody admits that America is the center of the freak show basically.

Japan personally. I mean if you come out of the closet your whole family gets dishonored and outcasted because of it.

BTW I am not fear of homophobes. I am just sick of the nonsense.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by dragnet53]

If by "freak show" you mean the gay movement, then my knowledge of what upsets people comes only from threads like this. We get most of our impression of US culture via the media, especially satellite channels.
Reference to gays is few and far between, usually the odd stylist on a fashion show, or re-runs of Will and Grace.
What comes across as a major "freak show" are the evangelical channels like TBN - the bizarre fundraising and behaviour, the garish women, camp sets and odd-looking pastors.
Then it's hyper-heterosexual celebrities like Mel Gibson or Paris Hilton, and their goofy utterences and intoxicated shenanigans.
The reality shows all seem so unreal - the women's boobs look unnatural, the tans are fake and the faces deformed by surgery. Jerry Springer and shots of Walmart just show incredibly fat people - morbidly obese.
And then there's schoolboys on steroids (who might lose their "manhood" to gain its appearance)!
So whatever gays do sounds like a "freak show" within a "freak show"?
These are just media impressions, and I have no idea if they are true.

As for Japan, I'm not sure where you get your information, but it is not generally a homophobic country, and many gay people visit it or teach there. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
A Collective Response to 4 Recent Posts:
(There were simply too many good points to argue against individually, but some may recognize their arguments here.)
In the recent posts I just see a lot of alarmism if society becomes more liberal. Naked drugged up people in the streets being legal? Muslims raping "our women" for being immodest? (Really a mish-mash of contradictory ultra right/left fears.) But what if society becomes more restrictive based on certain beliefs and tastes? What is the danger of this - what will your alarmist fears allow? What does history teach here?

Then there are posters who claim that single-parenting significantly causes homosexuality. (Not in my case.) This sounds like the logic of some religious right "family" research centres, and their killing two birds with one stone pseudoscience. Divorce and premarital sex is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, therefore the one leads to the other.
Whatever the case, it blames homosexuality, or even feminity in men on heterosexuals. So really, to argue against homosexuality, they must first argue against forms of heterosexuality (which they rarely follow through, since many of the fundamentalists are themselves remarried in violation of Jesus's teaching on marriage). But they don't, they still argue that heterosexuality is superior and good for humanity and the planet, even its unbridled forms.

Then another post bemoans the fact that men want kids without making them. Isn't that the problem? Too many straight men making kids and not bothering to stick around? If it wasn't for paternity DNA tests and laws on child-support many kids would be starving. What about straight men making kids and not fathering them?
It's not gay men who want equal rights to women, it's women who want equal rights to men. And "gays" includes both gays and lesbian women, who could always bear children.

Exactly how does the gay movement make heteros bisexual? By other arguments gays are just a few "diseased" people, and heteros are the God-ordained, ingrained order of creation? This argument makes it sound as if heterosexuality was a rather flimsy preference, altered by a bit of gay visibility. It was and is indeed gays who are the subject of conversion camps and therapies that aim to make them heterosexual (or an ideal of heterosexuality, hopefully not a wife-beater, rapist or "loose stud"). Yet such therapies have hardly been resounding success stories, although they force many into temporary, hurtful forms of bisexuality.

The last time I recall bisexuality in men being fashionable was when David Bowie claimed to have slept with Mick Jagger in the glam rock movement of the mid-1970s. Otherwise visible bisexuality is two "hot chicks" kissing to turn on a male heterosexual audience - for some reason many hetero men find two starlets kissing erotic. So yeah, bisexuality is "performed" for heterosexual purposes.

(PS. Annee, I wasn't responding to you here, and thanks for your courageous efforts and points!)


[edit on 12-8-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Schrödinger
 


Soon gay men will be wanting equal treatment like women and want to bare children just like them. When the day man is able to have children..............I plan on investing my time in a terrorist group.

An interesting post, so another response.
You mean women's biological possibility of bearing children has made them equal? I could have sworn the opposite was true and women had to fight for maternity pay and leave. Does the ability to bear children confer any special rights?
Well, when the hypothetical day should come, you better have a water-proof definition of biological maleness, apart from the cultural gender construct of "manhood", that shuts out all intersex possibilities.
Then who would you aim your terrorist group at?
The children? The doctors? The gay "mothers", or also the straight men/couples who may choose the option?
To me, personally it would just be a big turn-off, uggh, a knocked up male, might as well go straight
!
I'd respect people who really want a child and can provide a secure home.
But that's all unlikely in any case.

Well, if it should happen the medications for morning sickness and labor pains will become ten-times more effective! Beer adverts will focus on all-male "stork parties".


[edit on 12-8-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 



DOn't get your panties in a wad. George Carlin stated,"When you are born into this world you enter a freak show. When you are born in America you get front row seats."

Yes, I am talking about the freaks who is turning america into a freak show. All because of 'equal' rights.

Never knew the USA gave equal rights to sexual deviants.

:shk:



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I wouldn't care which group I join. Yeah, sadly I can see that soon. I mean now a days they can turn a man into a woman without even knowing the lady was a man. They even take away the adams apple.

I'd probably join those crazy islamic groups.
I'd go after the doctors and their idiotic common sense.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 

Yeah give them a try by all means, they might recoil at Western gays, but if you think there's no homosexuality in the Taliban controlled tribal areas you'll have the shock of your life. But that's just what one hears.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman

(PS. Annee, I wasn't responding to you here, and thanks for your courageous efforts and points!)



Thanks. I try to stay logical and on point.

And -I have no problem ending discussion with someone who wants to bash - - or just continue "poking a stick".

The bottom line is - - - belief can not determine rights or deny protection of rights.

Equal is Equal. If one group is allowed legal contractual marriage - - all groups are allowed legal contractual marriage.

Not agreeing or believing - that gays are a recognized minority group - is irrelevant.

It does not affect you.






[edit on 12-8-2010 by Annee]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Funny, I used to disagree with you, but I at least respected your opinion......can't say that now. You made clear on another thread that in fact you didn't believe in equality for all, and yet here you are spouting the opposite. Also the absurdity of saying things like I'd never let my children see a man carrying a cross while encouraging them to go to a gay prode parade........man, I guess equality doesn't play so much in your life as in your typing. Worse kind of hypocrites are those who can't even agree with themselves........



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Annee
 


Funny, I used to disagree with you, but I at least respected your opinion......can't say that now. You made clear on another thread that in fact you didn't believe in equality for all, . . .


You know above where I mention "poking with a stick". Well here you have it.

Post is referencing discussion on blood siblings marrying and producing off spring.

My position was (and still is) - - I have no problem with the marriage - - but do not support them having children - - for the obvious reason.

It would be in the best interest of procreation into the gene pool - - that said siblings be past the age reproduction - or one should be sterilized.

This of course has nothing to do with gays marrying - - or any group.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Halfoldedman. You are confusing diplomacy with concubinage. Yes, chiefs did give daughters to impressive strangers, Pohcahantus, for instance, but it was the Jesuits, who really brought down the Incas. They preached to all the "sleep walkers", about the nuclear family, and that was it for the Inca's ludicrous regime. Obviously, Pizzaro, strangling the Inca King, didn't hurt this drill either, but the wiley Jesuits, must have really worked over that Chieftan's daughter, to boot. She evidently saw the light, even in the midst, of what we would call Pizzaro's crime family, today. Heck, even the Goths sent one prince to Constantinople, to be educated, and he ended up chasing them all out of Rome, and into the far Western reaches of Europe.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


You misunderstand what I am trying to say. No where did I say anything about outlawing or banning anything.

I am saying that what we are seeing here where I live, is that the minorities are starting to discriminate the majority, and demanding special treatment, because they have a religious, political or sexual orientation.

I do not want a more restrictive society, I am an anarchist. But as such, you do not see me going around, stuffing my political views down other peoples throats. You do not see me demanding special treatment, or that I should be above the law, because of my political orientation.

I am also asatru, but I do not demand the right to carry a battleaxe with me where ever I go, or my religious right to hold slaves.

In regards to females and bearing children; over here every female gets 1 year of parental leave, with full payment, she can then take another 6-12 months on 90% pay.

At the same time, we have laws making it almost impossible to fire a pregnant woman, even though the reason she is getting fired have nothing to do with her pregnancy. We have smaller corporations, that have to keep a pregnant woman, even though they would go bankrupt.

Fathers on the other hand have very little rights when it comes to parenting! We get 14 days, and the rest we have to take from our partners parental leave, up to a maximum of 6 mths. We also have the same possibility to get extended parental leave at 90% pay however.

The extra leave have to be approved by the company! (for both males and females)

To get to the point though.

We aren't the same, and we can't make rules that makes everyone equal, because we are not equal.
Should there be a law against discriminating against stupidity? or lack of credentials or education?
What about discriminating extremist groups?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schrödinger


I am saying that what we are seeing here where I live, is that the minorities are starting to discriminate the majority, and demanding special treatment, because they have a religious, political or sexual orientation.



Please explain Special Treatment.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I already have several times, and I do not feel I owe you anything, after the personal attacks you launched my way! You do not posses the ability to have a civil discourse. Therefore you will simply have to read my prior posts and find the explanation yourself!



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schrödinger
reply to post by Annee
 


I already have several times, and I do not feel I owe you anything, after the personal attacks you launched my way! You do not posses the ability to have a civil discourse. Therefore you will simply have to read my prior posts and find the explanation yourself!


Really? Nice "slide out".

Yeah - I'm big on attacks and name calling. That's my MO.

Feel free to point them out or re-post them for all to judge.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Annee]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


You have had a condescending tone in this whole debate, you have ridiculed the opposition, with remarks like the "Myth of god" or "you have issues".

Now I do not know where you are from, but that is just out of line.
It does not help the debate what so ever.

Now to get to the point, I am not sliding of, I have explained in detail where the special treatment is taking place. Now just because you do not want to find it, does it mean that I haven't written it or is trying to obfuscate anything.

I simply cannot be arsed with you. You are a hypocrite.

Here is where you are using ad hominem:



Whine Piss Moan




Get over it.


While not directed at me, this is how you address people you disagree with:



Do not address me. You disgust me.


This is no where near what manners and decorum implies, and if you cannot adhere to these simple principles, then I do not wish to engage with you in a debate.

You can keep saying to yourself, it is because you have nailed it, and is forcing me to slide of.
If you repeat it enough times I am sure it will become the truth for you.

You are one big logical fallacy! And you are so emotionally tied up in this that you cannot see the forest because of all the trees.

This will be my last reply to you, now I know you will get the last word, and that is okay with me, keep telling yourself that this means that you somehow "won" the debate, and had me run away, because of your perfect arguments.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schrödinger
reply to post by Annee
 


You have had a condescending tone in this whole debate, you have ridiculed the opposition, with remarks like the "Myth of god" or "you have issues".


NO. I post very short logical posts. Rarely do I go the emotional route.

I went back to see what I posted. I think there were 4 short posts (maybe 5) where I responded to you. The only thing I think might be questionable is when I said: "whine - piss - moan" - - to you complaining about a once a year gay parade - which you felt was too close to your residence.

Your real problem is: I Don't Agree with you.

-------------------------------------------------

So - On Topic - - which country would you choose to avoid these gay parades?





[edit on 13-8-2010 by Annee]




top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join