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.

 

Gay Marriage Will Lead To 'Anarchy'

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


InfraRedMan,

based upon that answer...this is too much...

Bills Receiver Blames God for Dropped Pass - no, seriously

The Onion is coming to life.

CJ




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
While I do not agree wholeheartedly with the athlete's sweeping generalization, it is true that a consensus of research shows that children who come from "non-traditional" family units are more at risk for violence, substance abuse, poverty and criminality later in life:

Study: "Are married parents really better for children"

I believe it is possible for practically anyone to raise a healthy child.

I also believe it is probable that each factor that moves a household away from the norm, even unavoidable factors like the death of one parent, places the children in enhanced risk. All of us can share examples of children raised in adverse circumstances who later went on to great things; but it is also true that the statistics show increasing risk as children grow up in circumstances further and further from the norm.

If the issue was about the children, then we'd do what we could to normalize hetero two-parent households, without trampling on the rights of anyone else to do what they can to raise their children in whatever situations they find themselves.

But since this issue really ISN'T about the children, we cannot even begin to say the "normal is sometimes better," or even that there is such a thing as normal.


"Normal" is now a bad thing.

Our society is changing so rapidly now that it resembles an organism whose cancer has metastasized.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


I hope you are being sarcastic, though somehow I think you are not.
To say all football players are gay is a ridiculous statement. Some are I am sure as the odds that they all are not is absurd as is the odds they all are.
I am sure most of them are bulking up and taking 'roids is because they can make millions of dollars by playing a game.

On another note I do remember the Bills receiver thing happening last year. He did though praise God I think it was either the week before or after when he did make the game win catch.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
I'm a fond student of natural philosophy, so your words are not wasted, but the end virtues which you speak can be obtained under any workable government system which doesn't ignore basic human rights. To plug anarchy above all, and as the most desirable system than any in existance, sounds very near-sighted to me. What about a Libertarian government or variant, a healthy republic, a benevolent ascendacy (where it's headed) or a true theocracy under God?......

I'm pretty sure we will never agree on this, since any and every form of government draws its power from coercion, force and the threat of violence and in the end is nothing more then slavery.


.....I immediately disagree that you can draw that I'm "willing to strip rights from people" because I mention something about anarchy likely terminating in violence. That's like saying the fisherman is responsible for the weight of his catch.........

You have made it clear you wish to not allow the "positive right" of marriage to same sex couples, that is violating their personal "negative right" of liberty

......On that possibility, if you don't have any central or overseeing government, then you will lose out on many vast macro-benefits that a state-facilitated rulership offers by way of cost-effectiveness, organization and tracking, logistics, trade-based funding, emergency preparedness, and so forth that might not be accessable unless society proved itself capable of organizing itself with respect and reaching across it's many borders to embrace the growing community prescences. Centralized government will be reborn again, I predict, because we have learned the lessons of the ancient Greeks that point out the multiple vulnerabilities of the city states. I think it's against humanities fulfillment ideals to not strive for some form of utopia, that has its own cultures held intact, and secure. If it concerns any that I mention "state-facilitated", I mean nothing beyond the definition to avoid the emotional implications.

Yes the wonders of welfare, massive regulations, global wars and in the end a police state that collapses into chaos. There is noting utopian about Anarchy. If you wish to live under a form of government, you are free to subjugate yourself to the state, why can I not have the same choice to withdraw my consent to be governed


And you are the one sounding all worked up, not me. No, being angry with someone over them being gay is not immediately hate. It clearly constitutes defiance, and one element of defiance is a lack of tolerance for an abscence of virtues.....
So what you are saying is because I don't have the same religious values you have I also have no virtue? Or are you saying that a gay person, even one that is a practising Christian has no virtue by the very nature they are gay?


If I blend patience and understanding with an unending defiance towards the lack of virtue I perceive, and at long length consider - not the sour definitions of a worty propaganda scheme aimed at a lame-duck mediocrity, a homogenization of terms both good and evil cunningly twisted together - then I can definately nail a few points the other side and and come out smiling. Not smiling because I like insulting people, but pleased that the issue got brought up again, and it wasn't so bandwagon a soapbox to stand out once a few keen points about "the gay agenda" get pointed out. The only ones who make it obnoxious are those who jump on the hate trail themselves, and start the retardation of labels, once again. Gay agenda is character assassination, to slay the image of those who contest the least of it's contentious points. Why so touchy?

I am far from touchy. If you were to replace gay with black it would be hate, why isn't it the same for gay? And if you replaced gay with Christian, I can see the Christian Agenda as being character assassination as that is what you are doing.


At least have the decency to equate one dislike with another dislike. I don't know too many people who are against life, liberty, and property ownership. I think solid working ethics and inner form integrity, captured in any decent, survivable form, is the way to earn those God-given rights, from Him. To me, that's better than any politically correct notion there is!

I see anyone who votes as someone more then willing to strip others of these rights, they vote to tax others, they vote for leaders willing to send their children off to die for their own personal reasons, they choice who is allowed to live a certain way, they vote to allow people to suffer all in the name of the common good. God did not grant me any rights. These are rights that I have decided I will defend with my life, and I will defend others right to have them as well.
edit on 18-6-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by theUNKNOWNawaits
 


Well, I am a HUGE Denver Broncos fan, so, I guess by my own logic in my last post, I must be gay. But I'm not. So yes, it was sarcastic. The idea that anyone can say anything, regarless of meaning, is neat. This man has made a stupid statement that is in every sense stupid and not thought out. I just thought maybe a newspaper would pick up my line and I would become famous for having said something nonsensical. That's all.

CJ



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
any one trying to dictate who can marry

is fundamentally wrong in every way possible

its not the governments job

nor is it yours or mine

2 men

2 woman

have just as much right to marry

if you think other wise

you are the problem



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I just LOVE it when terminology gets thrown around. Most don't know what "socialism" is. Nor "communism". They are lead by what is being fed by the media. Anarchy is actually a good system............... in theory. It takes personal accountability though which is lacking in the people of today.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


long live anarchy, long live anarchy, long live anarchy,
and to avoid this being a one-liner, once more : long live anarchy !



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
So gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage and the spiritual union that it represents, no doubt leading to anarchy!!

If you want to talk about destroying the sanctity of marriage, lets talk about Las Vegas allowing quickie weddings while dressed as Elvis, let's talk about Britney Spears marrying and divorcing within 24 hours, lets talk about US game shows offering a million dollars for people to find their Mr Right. Lets talks about a 1 in 3 Divorce rate in the United States!!

You don't need gay people to demean and undermine marriage, heterosexual couples have managed to do that just fine!!



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Looks like this one likes wide receivers and dislikes tight ends.

Anyway, marriage does not tend to lead to Anarchy. Married couples tend to like things safe and orderly. Not that there is anything wrong about Anarchy, but married couples are not known for their preference of it.

edit on 18-6-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
because marriages are not safe and orderly - quite the opposite - things turn out to be a chaos - which then is termed erroneously 'anarchy'



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bestintentions
because marriages are not safe and orderly - quite the opposite - things turn out to be a chaos - which then is termed erroneously 'anarchy'


I realize Anarchy wouldnt have to be chaotic. Thats probably the wide receivers view. But it probably would be if implemented today. Give it 10 000 years and we might be able to live anarchy.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


i think anarchy does not have to be implemented. i think it is part of all of us, it is a way of living, activated in each of us according to our capability and awareness of it. and i do agree that unfortunately for too many it will be a matter of 10000 more years of activation.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
One cannot choose their orientation and there are obviously much more pressing issues at hand than homosexuality. However, people simply MUST learn that things like these are to be kept to oneself. Children should not be exposed to deviancy. Imho, queers indeed have no business raising children.




Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by Northwarden
 


What are you saying...do you personally feel threated by gay marriage? I know why though and I can guess it goes hand in hand with studies that show homophobic men are more aroused by gay porn. There's a lot of self-hate out there.

ARGH, not this again. Seriously, do you really believe that? I mean, do you also believe that those who detest pedophiles are, in fact, secretly pedophiles themselves? Hmmmm...........



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 

Same sex marriage was legalised here in Norway years ago and still no sign of any anarchy.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I doubt it will cause anarchy, we have same sex marriage here in England and it's not a problem.

If two guys or two women love each other it's nobody elses business.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryOne
One cannot choose their orientation and there are obviously much more pressing issues at hand than homosexuality. However, people simply MUST learn that things like these are to be kept to oneself. Children should not be exposed to deviancy. Imho, queers indeed have no business raising children.

Really? Queers? Right after you admit that they cannot choose their orientation you result to name calling, and suggest that they don't have the same right to Life and Liberty that you enjoy? I will assume, that even though you believe they are born this way, that they are in fact sub-human much like the slaves of the past?

This just re-enforces my belief that regardless of science, there are only two races of people on this planet, the humane and the inhumane



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NuroSlam
 

Relax. You're taking me out of context.

Firstly, "queer" isn't much of an insult; it just means "odd".

And understand that I do not particularly dislike queers. I just insist that sexuality - especially sexual deviancy - must be kept in the closet and away from the young ones. That's all.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryOne
One cannot choose their orientation and there are obviously much more pressing issues at hand than homosexuality. However, people simply MUST learn that things like these are to be kept to oneself. Children should not be exposed to deviancy. Imho, queers indeed have no business raising children.




Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by Northwarden
 


What are you saying...do you personally feel threated by gay marriage? I know why though and I can guess it goes hand in hand with studies that show homophobic men are more aroused by gay porn. There's a lot of self-hate out there.

ARGH, not this again. Seriously, do you really believe that? I mean, do you also believe that those who detest pedophiles are, in fact, secretly pedophiles themselves? Hmmmm...........


Only people at the very end of their argument use that sick line.

Yes, I do believe that often, so called heterosexual people who are terrified of their own sexuality, whatever persuation or degree (icluding bi-sexual), tend to be more vocal in their disapproval of homosexuality in order to continue to disguise their own sexuality.

There are two other reasons. They are told homosexuality is wrong, either by religious doctrine or what they consider their own social order. The only other option is that they don't quite know what to make of it and are frustrated by how vocal homosexuals are. This betrays some ignorance because most gay people don't march down the streets yelling at others to give them rights and acknowlege them.

However one looks at it, there only reason some still consider it wrong is that there are more religious or uneducated people in the world, that there are homosexuals.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryOne
Firstly, "queer" isn't much of an insult; it just means "odd".

And understand that I do not particularly dislike queers. I just insist that sexuality - especially sexual deviancy - must be kept in the closet and away from the young ones. That's all.

So are you saying that gays by and large lay around having sex in front of children? I really don't see the justification for deigning one persons "negative right" while insisting that others should have it. Everyone is deviant in one way shape or form, otherwise we would be nothing but clones, at what point does your deviancy become suspect concerning your rights?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join