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.

 

"I have gay friends, but..." Umm... No, you don't...

page: 61
95
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Not at all. It's just common sense; if you advocate a second-class position for a "friend," then you're not being at all friendly. If you denigrate and insult your friends on basis of who they are, then you are not being friendly. If you express disgust with your friends because of who they choose to be with, you are not being friendly.

In other words, you are not that person's friend.




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

This thread is absurd.

Many gay people themselves oppose gay marraige (why on earth would you want the government to impose conditions upon your relationship?).


Why do they oppose it?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
I have friends who believe that Marriage is a religious institution sanctioned by God. I do not believe Marriage is a religious institution sanctioned by God. Does this mean I cannot ever have true friendships with people who believe strongly in these ideas?

Being opposed to Gay Marriage and or the glorification of Homosexuality in the media does not mean you consider somebody who happens to be Gay any less of a human being than a Heterosexual person. If I have friends who believe there is a worldwide conspiracy to shove heterosexuality down the throats of the global population, does this mean they consider me to be sub-human and part of the plot because I happen to be a heterosexual person?

Stop focussing on the Puppets and look at the Puppet Masters!
edit on 22/1/2011 by Dark Ghost because: calrity



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I have friends who believe that Marriage is a religious institution sanctioned by God. I do not believe Marriage is a religious institution sanctioned by God. Does this mean I cannot ever have true friendships with people who believe strongly in these ideas?

Being opposed to Gay Marriage and or the glorification of Homosexuality in the media does not mean you consider somebody who happens to be Gay any less of a human being than a Heterosexual person. If I have friends who believe there is a worldwide conspiracy to shove heterosexuality down the throats of the global population, does this mean they consider me to be sub-human and part of the plot because I happen to be a heterosexual person?

Stop focussing on the Puppets and look at the Puppet Masters!
edit on 22/1/2011 by Dark Ghost because: calrity


It's about equal rights. Being a heterosexual grants you certain rights and consideration economically in America. I really don't care if they call it "marriage", but if my partner and I want to take advantage of some benefits offered to heterosexuals and we agree via a contract of "marriage/civil union" then we should be allowed those rights. As it is right now, if my partner dies, I cannot have access to her social security benefits for our children. If she were from another country, I could not marry her and bring her here legally based on our relationship as heterosexuals can at this time. If we apply for a loan for a vehicle they put the worst credit score in the first position verses married heterosexuals having the one with the better credit score getting the first position. We pay the same taxes and yet cannot enjoy simple benefits others take for granted.

America, the land of the free as long as you are a heterosexual.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Serenity08
 


How about we grant Homosexual couples the right to Civil Unions that carry the same legal benefits as Marriage does in the legal sense for Married Heterosexual couples? Those things you mentioned are reasonable requests and I don't see why they cannot be granted considering you and your partner are both consenting adults.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Serenity08
 


How about we grant Homosexual couples the right to Civil Unions that carry the same legal benefits as Marriage does in the legal sense for Married Heterosexual couples? Those things you mentioned are reasonable requests and I don't see why they cannot be granted considering you and your partner are both consenting adults.


Separate - but Equal.

Been there - done that.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 




"I have gay friends, but..." Umm... No, you don't...


Actually, I do have friends who are not gay and I still do not always agree with them any of a range of topics. Friendship is not based on simple agreement or bending one's beliefs to fit contemporary thought trends.

I am however, grateful that I do have friends who do not expect that of me because they know I don't of them.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
My gay friends and I agree that they have the same rights, legally speaking, as I being heterosexual have. There is no 'unfairness', no 'discrimination' involved. Gay people actually do have the same rights as hetero's do. And it's also arguable that Gay's have more rights, or maybe more priveledge under law, than heterosexual's do: crimes against "gay" person's have more serious penalties than the equivalent crime committed against a "hetero", for instance.

I, being hetero, do not have the right to 'marry' one of the same sex as I, nor do gays. Gays have the right to marry one of the opposite sex, as do I. Love, being an emotion, does not grant me the right to marry any individual I choose, nor does love grant gays such right.

Prove to me they don't have the same rights as I, and I might work with you to give them the same rights as I.

For what it's worth, health care and such is not a right, but rather a contract entered into by an individual with stipulations, and therefore not inclusive. Likewise, inheritance is not a right, and since such can be controlled and "bequeathed" in a "will", such is not included.


edit on 1/23/2011 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I have gay friends and ............(Gasp !)..............No. I don't agree with homosexuality.

It was written somewhere, "Hate the sin. Love the sinner."

This basically means that nobody is perfect and most people won't ever fall within everyones definition of good or right or perfect or decent. Deal with it and find the good that you can in everybody.

The OP is making a statement that is tantamount to Bush saying, "You are either with us or you are against us."

It simply doesn't make sense to try and condemn people on your own ideal of absolutes.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
It is not about "equal rights", it is about curing future generations.

If we deny that homosexuals have a malfunction, we condemn future generation to the same painful life.

We do not accept the problem, bury our head in the sand, we help current homosexuals to an easier life, but condemn future generations to experience the same pain .... it is plain evil.

No research into gene therapy and similar can happen, because we defined malfunctioning sexuality to be normal.

The homosexuals that want it to be normal, are like the one armed man that advocate everybody should cut off their arm to make him normal.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


they way that you have described it, these people are not your friends.

in order to be friends with someone, you must respect and VALUE them as a truly individuated willful being.

rather, you are interacting with them as pawns inside of your own mental playground. everything that they do or say is referenced against some aspect of your own self-concept.

have you ever watchted 3 year olds "playing" with one another? it may at first look like they are actually cooperating. but a closer examination will reveal that they are in fact 'playing alone, together'. these children are not truly friends. they are too immersed in their own experience. this is the sort of behavior you are showing.

granted, your concept map of reality is a great deal more complex than a 3 year old's. and because of that, it is very easy to appear as though, and even convince yourself that, you are actually friends. but somewhere deep down inside, you yourself do not know what it means to be a "whole person" and so you cannot afford them that same right.

naturally, this is all speculation on my part. i dont know you at all. best of luck to you.





posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pilot70
...homosexuals have a malfunction...


why must individual persons own this problem? it makes a lot more sense to me that society has a malfunction and that homosexuals are merely those whom are expressing the problem, or rather, they are the symptom.

and from a sociological perspective, we must examine social determinants such as "what is the social definition of maleness?" and "what are the modes of acceptable interaction between males in a given society?"

if you examine these questions in a personally honest way, i think you will find that non-homosexuals are contributing to the "malfunction" every bit as much as the homosexuals themselves.

at the university the other day, i watched two females holding hands in the very casual way that females do. i suggest that the current answers to the two questions above must be modified in order to allow males to have the same freedom of expression as the hand-holding females.

thus, there is a deep isolation and yearning within the male psyche which some people are more prone to than others. and by isolating those people, you are only reinforcing the problem.


...best.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pilot70
It is not about "equal rights", it is about curing future generations.

If we deny that homosexuals have a malfunction, we condemn future generation to the same painful life.

We do not accept the problem, bury our head in the sand, we help current homosexuals to an easier life, but condemn future generations to experience the same pain .... it is plain evil.

No research into gene therapy and similar can happen, because we defined malfunctioning sexuality to be normal.

The homosexuals that want it to be normal, are like the one armed man that advocate everybody should cut off their arm to make him normal.


How about we cure white people first? They're a greater proportion of the population than homosexuals, after all, we should prioritize. And their malfunction is grades more harmful!

You see, there are about a billion and a half white people, and another billion more with similar skin tones, and they are all suffering. That tragic lack of melanin in their skin opens them wide up for cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation, leading to everything from painful sunburns to life-threatening melanomas. Sixty-eight thousand people are diagnosed with skin cancer in the United States alone.

We should not force future generations to live with this tragic and painful flaw. We should not treat it as "normal" - most of the world is brown, and white skin is painful and dangerous in this age of the thinning ozone layer.

The white people that wanted to be treated as normal, rather than aberrant, are like the blind man demanding everyone should cut out their own eyes to make him feel more normal.

...Yeah. That's sarcasm, for anyone wondering.

Hi there, I'm a heterosexual male. I consider homosexuality normal for the same reasons I'm an Indian guy who considers white skin normal. Because it is. It's simply one of several thousand variations on the basic model of "human," one that causes no harm, one that does not demand denial of any rights, privileges, or self-determination from that person.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by badgerprints
 


they way that you have described it, these people are not your friends.

in order to be friends with someone, you must respect and VALUE them as a truly individuated willful being.

naturally, this is all speculation on my part. i dont know you at all. best of luck to you.




Well,
No you don't know me and I don't know you. That's why we talk about this kind of stuff.

Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is either biology or choice. Mostly it's biology.
I recognize that and don't judge a person based on a physical trait that they have inherited. They are gay because they ARE GAY. Not because it is fashionable or they are confused. Otherwise they are the same as a heterosexual.

Having said that, I don't agree with the mentality of turning homosexuality into s sex based circus as is done all of the time by the media and by people that for some reason feel they need to "shock" everyone else into noticing them and intentionally offending them if they are not supporters of homosexuality.

Overtly flamboyant and showy displays of homosexuality are not normal in my opinion. It is not healthy for society and is exploited by the special interest to victimize homosexuals. This is why the homosexual agenda won't ever be something I support.

I can and do recognize these ideas as my own opinions (and we all have opinions) but still am capable of seeing each person I know as an individual with his or her own gifts, faults, likes, dislikes and preferences.

My friends like the fact that I don't pretend to be something I'm not. They appreciate the fact that friendship isn't based on wether or not I support their orientations, sexual or otherwise. My friends are my friends and some of them happen to be gay. The fact that I don't support their ideals is irrelevant.Once again. Absolute idealism is patently false. It's like a broken clock. It's right twice a day but it's wrong the other 23 hours and 58 minutes.

You are either for us or against us?
It's a big steaming pile of manipulation.
edit on 23-1-2011 by badgerprints because: to clarify a point



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints


...either biology or choice...a physical trait...they ARE GAY....Not because it is fashionable or they are confused.....are the same......sex based circus..."shock" everyone...intentionally offending...not normal...homosexual agenda


you have given us a very detailed description of your mental playground. what is important to remember here is that you were talking about you (although you have imagined that you are talking about other people and situations). as i said before, you think that you are engaging these people directly when it sounds very much like you have constructed a straw-man for them and are interacting with that. in fact, you have constructed one for yourself as "the genuinely tolerant and non-judgemental friend". i am imagining you now with a little dollhouse playset and figurines playing the whole thing out for pretends.

i just dont see how what you think or feel has anything to do with them. what difference does it make if it is biological or a choice? what difference does it make if they intentionally offend people or not? they do what they do. they are whomever they are.

i suppose it is inevitable that people will form opinions. but your opinions talk about you. your opinions do NOT talk about them.

if i am anything but ME to someone, that person is not my friend. friendship is unconditional and as such it is completely insulated from whatever happens to be going on in your head. conversely, if something is going on in your head about them you are not their friend.


i do not know if what i am saying is clear to you. but i find your position very concerning.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Men and Women ARE different but they deserve the same rights and freedoms. Homosexuals and Heterosexuals ARE different and both deserve rights and freedoms as human beings - not by virtue of their sexuality. Gay Marriage is about equating the union of two members of the same sex as being equal to the union of two members of the opposite sex. They are not equal which is why the former should not be called Marriage.

How about we change the definition of "House Owner" to include anybody who pays money to live at their current dwelling? How's that for equality?
edit on 24/1/2011 by Dark Ghost because: spelling



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Wow up to 61 pages now I see. Even thought I have seen this thread title countless times I have avoided it completely, because the answers I read from some people about how homosexuality is a 'malfunction', a 'choice', 'satanism', 'sinning', 'hated by Jesus', and oh my god the list could go on for days.

As a gay man I could spend days in this thread throwing out rebuttal after rebuttal to the ignorant and DE-evolutionized comments from the various bigots putting in there own two hay pennies on the subjects of 'Gay".

Ultimately though if these posters "against' homosexuality feel so strongly in their beliefs that they must continue to put forth these various absurd reasons why 'Gay' is not Okay, then it is only completely clear to everyone else that these individuals must be desperately trying to suppress their own homosexual tendencies that they were taught were wrong.

Hiding behind computer screens and preaching the ethics of a challenged bigot is cowardly. I say let them type their fact-less preachings because they are a dying breed, and soon enough humanity won't be plagued any longer with these truly special, special people: the defectives.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Not at all. It's just common sense; if you advocate a second-class position for a "friend," then you're not being at all friendly. If you denigrate and insult your friends on basis of who they are, then you are not being friendly. If you express disgust with your friends because of who they choose to be with, you are not being friendly.

In other words, you are not that person's friend.


Drama-queen nonsense.

I have straight friends who are into all sorts of sexual practices that I find disgusting, distasteful, strange etc. etc. etc. (and I know they think some of my behavior is strange etc. etc.). Only a profoundly shallow person would dismiss the possibility of real friendship over such differences.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Annee
 


Men and Women ARE different but they deserve the same rights and freedoms. Homosexuals and Heterosexuals ARE different and both deserve rights and freedoms as human beings - not by virtue of their sexuality. Gay Marriage is about equating the union of two members of the same sex as being equal to the union of two members of the opposite sex. They are not equal which is why the former should not be called Marriage.

How about we change the definition of "House Owner" to include anybody who pays money to live at their current dwelling? How's that for equality?


That's pure BS.

"House Owner" - - I'm old enough to have been around before "Equal Housing". When you could refuse to sell your house to someone because of the Color of their Skin or their Religion or Ethnicity. It was wrong then and is still wrong.

Marriage is a Legal Government Contract - - as in Marriage License. It is to protect the rights and property of those joining together as One.

This is about the Legal Rights and Legal Equality - - for EVERY citizen. It has nothing to do with God or anyone's personal/emotiona/belief objection.



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join