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.

 

Hysterical Michele Bachmann flees teenage gay activist

page: 18
50
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mugger
I do not agree with any government official or boat Captain performing marriages.

...so only those who are religious should be allowed to get married? Wanna rethink that?




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
This is HOW 'they' came to be considered 'normal'. In 1973 an ‘orchestrated criminal act’ was committed which released homosexuals from the mental health act. In the group of psychiatrists who voted to have the ‘disorder’ of homosexuality removed from the mental health act were a group of closeted homosexuals. In 1973 homosexuals were not ALLOWED BY LAW to be psychiatrists so they kept their homosexuality quiet / closeted homosexuals. These closeted homosexuals had the disorder of homosexuality removed from the DSM. The vote was against the law DUE TO the FACT they were not ALLOWED BY LAW TO VOTE. The disorder of homosexuality MUST again be placed into the DSM because **the vote was illegal**. There MUST be a full investigation of this situation and it can be remedied when the DSM is reworked in two years. This ‘reworking’ MUST be undertaken by ALL doctors and EVERY doctor to have a ‘vote’. One doctors’ license one vote. The reworking of the DSM is NOT to be undertaken by those in the ‘tainted’ groups such as the American Psychiatric Association. In 1973 it was subverted by a group of closeted homosexuals who reworked the DSM to remove THEMSELVES from the mental health act.

“Fryer was not alone in the APA. Because homosexuals were not allowed to practice psychiatry, Fryer and others like him had to hide their sexual preference, but they began to meet informally at APA conventions, calling themselves the Gay PA.”

“81 Words ” en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by mugger
So what If Bachmann's views are Christian and not supportive of Gay lifestyles? Does it make her wrong?
The silent majority of Christian's most likely agree with Bachmann.


She is running for president of America and not president of Christianity. In America, we have gay people.


First off, I hate Bachmann with a mad fiery passion the likes of which I could never relate in words. That being said, so what about having gay people in America? There are gay people all over the world, there has been since as far back as we could write and keep records.

What exactly do you need a POTUS to do for you if your gay? I hear words like equality and oppression used by the gay community which is absurd when discussing a sexual preference. Words such as ridiculed and unaccepted would be better words to use because that better describes what they feel by society as a whole.

Your government can not stop people from feeling a certain way about you, they can not make others accept your lifestyle nor convince the masses to treat you the way you would like, so who cares what the presidents views are on gays? You think if we had a gay president everyone who has a problem with gay people would say, hey guys...... Cut it out, our own president is gay........!? Thats a rhetorical question........



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by mugger
I do not agree with any government official or boat Captain performing marriages.

...so only those who are religious should be allowed to get married? Wanna rethink that?


I don't, the state should not be performing marriages for the good of everyone, man, women, space aliens or dolphins. The state should not have authority to grant a spiritual union of any kind because the state is an entity that lacks spirituality. The state should not be allowed to perform marriages of men and women in my opinion. The state should only be able to perform civil unions for the sole purpose of monetary arrangements.

Wan't to get married, joined, unified? Go find a spiritual or religious organization to do it, if there isn't one, well, ask yourself why, then if you still want too, found one. Spiritual couplings should also hold absolutely no legal authority as far as the state is concerned because as I said, an entity that by definition has no spirituality should not and could not define a spiritual ritual endeavored by two people.
edit on 15-8-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Let me try this again.

Kind of hard getting wording "straight" when dealing with a class of people ATS so dearly tries to protect.

1. As a politician you do not want to get into a yelling match with a gay person. (For reasons unknown to me, I can not go into detail)

If Politicians had a Bible, this would be 1 of the 10 Commandments.

Bachmann did the right thing.

BTW I am not the only one that gets nervous by gay people.

Remember John Edwards?

www.rushlimbaugh.com...


"What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?" Shrum quotes Edwards as saying, "I'm not comfortable around those people."






If you can't be in the presence of 4% of the population because they "make you nervous" because of how they argue... you're probably just dumber than them. And considering you're backing someone who thinks that carbon dioxide is going to save the freaking atmosphere, and says "fixing the economy is easy" with her no-plan to go with that statement.... I'd say that's not shocking news. This woman, George Bush, and Sarah Palin are practically attached at the "brain".
edit on 15-8-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by mustard seed
 


I disagree, they are very contagious...especially to kids. Gayness is spreading around the world like a virus



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ironjustice
 



Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described the events of 1971-3 in his book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (1981).

Bayer explains that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."

Under threat and presented with data from researchers such as Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker, the seventh printing of the DSM-II, in 1974, no longer listed homosexuality as a category of disorder. After a vote by the APA trustees in 1973, and confirmed by the wider APA membership in 1974, the diagnosis was replaced with the category of "sexual orientation disturbance".[10]

Source
edi t on 15/8/2011 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)


---

Use of violence and death threats to effect political change...history repeats itself...
edit on 15/8/2011 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by mustard seed
 


I disagree, they are very contagious...especially to kids. Gayness is spreading around the world like a virus


Good -- a counterattack population problems being caused by over-zealous procreators who think it's their duty to make too many people in one area in a search to please the invisible man.

Bad -- Thinking that a religious marital rite should give you a financial advantage over those who do not participate... and then disallow participants based on official protected grounds.

Anti-gay enthusiasts don't understand the constitution, resource decline, or marriage benefits, and if they do, they are simply totalitarian goofs that want to get ahead by pushing everyone else's heads under.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by mugger
So what If Bachmann's views are Christian and not supportive of Gay lifestyles? Does it make her wrong?
The silent majority of Christian's most likely agree with Bachmann.


She is running for president of America and not president of Christianity. In America, we have gay people.


First off, I hate Bachmann with a mad fiery passion the likes of which I could never relate in words. That being said, so what about having gay people in America? There are gay people all over the world, there has been since as far back as we could write and keep records.

What exactly do you need a POTUS to do for you if your gay? I hear words like equality and oppression used by the gay community which is absurd when discussing a sexual preference. Words such as ridiculed and unaccepted would be better words to use because that better describes what they feel by society as a whole.

Your government can not stop people from feeling a certain way about you, they can not make others accept your lifestyle nor convince the masses to treat you the way you would like, so who cares what the presidents views are on gays? You think if we had a gay president everyone who has a problem with gay people would say, hey guys...... Cut it out, our own president is gay........!? Thats a rhetorical question........


There is a huge difference between acceptance which no one is garanteed. You are correct in saying that no one can change how they "feel" towards gay peolpe. However, equality is something very different. I dare say that if people where allowed to vote on a myrad of other topics that society deems taboo, that there would be many changes in America, however, they are allowed to vote on the rights of gay people as a group and that is just wrong. When do we get to vote on the religious beliefs of Americans??

By the way, I, a litle tired of the word" lifestyle" How is my "lifestyle any different than yours? I dont get in my gay car and drive on a gay highway to my gay job. I dont have gay showers in the morning or use a gay toothbrush. There is no "lifestyle". I have a life like any other and deserve the same rights in my life as any other!



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Durchlaucht
 


This is a massive misconception. Gay People have the SAME rights as Straight People. This is not about equality because everyone has the same rights already. It is about wanting special rights and changing the definition of marriage to appease a minority.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Durchlaucht
 


This is a massive misconception. Gay People have the SAME rights as Straight People. This is not about equality because everyone has the same rights already. It is about wanting special rights and changing the definition of marriage to appease a minority.


Really? If i had the same rights as you, would we be having this conversation? I dont want "special" anything, I would like my marriage recognized so I can live in America and not in exile in another country. How is that special rights? This is not about the definition of the word marriage, but about the definition of the word justice!



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Durchlaucht
 


This is a massive misconception. Gay People have the SAME rights as Straight People. This is not about equality because everyone has the same rights already. It is about wanting special rights and changing the definition of marriage to appease a minority.


The definition of marriage has been changed thousands of times for much more ridiculous reasons.

Marriage yields federal financial benefits.

Many insurance companies require marriage to establish a beneficiary.

Many hospitals require marriage for visitation rights.

Equality isn't rocket science, stop acting like it's so complicated; it's not.

Given, the State has no place controlling marriage at all or offering better financial opportunities for those who subscribe to it, but if we're going to be reckless totalitarians, we might as well be fair about the tyranny.

Stop regurgitating brainless rhetoric that you heard in a GOP debate:

By your own "logic" (
), you can't call what gay people seek "special" rights, since you yourself could also participate, you could marry a man as well, no? Not special at all, it seems. That's YOUR LOGIC, go ahead and deny it at your own intellectual demise.
edit on 15-8-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durchlaucht

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Durchlaucht
 


This is a massive misconception. Gay People have the SAME rights as Straight People. This is not about equality because everyone has the same rights already. It is about wanting special rights and changing the definition of marriage to appease a minority.


Really? If i had the same rights as you, would we be having this conversation? I dont want "special" anything, I would like my marriage recognized so I can live in America and not in exile in another country. How is that special rights? This is not about the definition of the word marriage, but about the definition of the word justice!


So, in reading your post, I surmise by "rights" you mean the ability to be married by the state to a person of the same sex? This is what you are fighting so hard for? Is there anything else you consider a right that you don't have that I am unaware of? Id like to be sure on this before I can truly respond.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Durchlaucht

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Durchlaucht
 


This is a massive misconception. Gay People have the SAME rights as Straight People. This is not about equality because everyone has the same rights already. It is about wanting special rights and changing the definition of marriage to appease a minority.


Really? If i had the same rights as you, would we be having this conversation? I dont want "special" anything, I would like my marriage recognized so I can live in America and not in exile in another country. How is that special rights? This is not about the definition of the word marriage, but about the definition of the word justice!


So, in reading your post, I surmise by "rights" you mean the ability to be married by the state to a person of the same sex? This is what you are fighting so hard for? Is there anything else you consider a right that you don't have that I am unaware of? Id like to be sure on this before I can truly respond.


Do you consider the 1,180+- federal rights afforded to your marriage as "special rights" or just rights? As a tax paying citizen, I expect no more, but certainly no less!



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durchlaucht

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by mugger
So what If Bachmann's views are Christian and not supportive of Gay lifestyles? Does it make her wrong?
The silent majority of Christian's most likely agree with Bachmann.


She is running for president of America and not president of Christianity. In America, we have gay people.


First off, I hate Bachmann with a mad fiery passion the likes of which I could never relate in words. That being said, so what about having gay people in America? There are gay people all over the world, there has been since as far back as we could write and keep records.

What exactly do you need a POTUS to do for you if your gay? I hear words like equality and oppression used by the gay community which is absurd when discussing a sexual preference. Words such as ridiculed and unaccepted would be better words to use because that better describes what they feel by society as a whole.

Your government can not stop people from feeling a certain way about you, they can not make others accept your lifestyle nor convince the masses to treat you the way you would like, so who cares what the presidents views are on gays? You think if we had a gay president everyone who has a problem with gay people would say, hey guys...... Cut it out, our own president is gay........!? Thats a rhetorical question........


There is a huge difference between acceptance which no one is garanteed. You are correct in saying that no one can change how they "feel" towards gay peolpe. However, equality is something very different. I dare say that if people where allowed to vote on a myrad of other topics that society deems taboo, that there would be many changes in America, however, they are allowed to vote on the rights of gay people as a group and that is just wrong. When do we get to vote on the religious beliefs of Americans??

By the way, I, a litle tired of the word" lifestyle" How is my "lifestyle any different than yours? I dont get in my gay car and drive on a gay highway to my gay job. I dont have gay showers in the morning or use a gay toothbrush. There is no "lifestyle". I have a life like any other and deserve the same rights in my life as any other!


But it is a lifestyle, it is a lifestyle just as anything that is not majority is a lifestyle. If you take a vacation once a month, others will say you have a "lifestyle". If you drink 5 days a week, others will say you have a "lifestyle". I could apply that to many things and the point is if you do something that is different from the majority of other people they will consider it your lifestyle.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Durchlaucht

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by mugger
So what If Bachmann's views are Christian and not supportive of Gay lifestyles? Does it make her wrong?
The silent majority of Christian's most likely agree with Bachmann.


She is running for president of America and not president of Christianity. In America, we have gay people.


First off, I hate Bachmann with a mad fiery passion the likes of which I could never relate in words. That being said, so what about having gay people in America? There are gay people all over the world, there has been since as far back as we could write and keep records.

What exactly do you need a POTUS to do for you if your gay? I hear words like equality and oppression used by the gay community which is absurd when discussing a sexual preference. Words such as ridiculed and unaccepted would be better words to use because that better describes what they feel by society as a whole.

Your government can not stop people from feeling a certain way about you, they can not make others accept your lifestyle nor convince the masses to treat you the way you would like, so who cares what the presidents views are on gays? You think if we had a gay president everyone who has a problem with gay people would say, hey guys...... Cut it out, our own president is gay........!? Thats a rhetorical question........


There is a huge difference between acceptance which no one is garanteed. You are correct in saying that no one can change how they "feel" towards gay peolpe. However, equality is something very different. I dare say that if people where allowed to vote on a myrad of other topics that society deems taboo, that there would be many changes in America, however, they are allowed to vote on the rights of gay people as a group and that is just wrong. When do we get to vote on the religious beliefs of Americans??

By the way, I, a litle tired of the word" lifestyle" How is my "lifestyle any different than yours? I dont get in my gay car and drive on a gay highway to my gay job. I dont have gay showers in the morning or use a gay toothbrush. There is no "lifestyle". I have a life like any other and deserve the same rights in my life as any other!


But it is a lifestyle, it is a lifestyle just as anything that is not majority is a lifestyle. If you take a vacation once a month, others will say you have a "lifestyle". If you drink 5 days a week, others will say you have a "lifestyle". I could apply that to many things and the point is if you do something that is different from the majority of other people they will consider it your lifestyle.



So, only being in the majority makes soneone more right??? Since when does the majority equal being correct. Many time throughout history it has been shown in time that the majority was clearly wrong. Should we brig back slavery, women as property, segregation and non bi-racial marriages? Those at the time were clearly a majority as well.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Durchlaucht
 





So, only being in the majority makes soneone more right??? Since when does the majority equal being correct. Many time throughout history it has been shown in time that the majority was clearly wrong. Should we brig back slavery, women as property, segregation and non bi-racial marriages? Those at the time were clearly a majority as well.


If you honestly take that away from my post I fear your emotions are clouding your reading comprehension. Being in the majority affords you the luxury of labeling other behavior that you deem different from the majority of the group you perceive yourself as belonging too. It affords that luxury because that is the way our society functions and it functions that way because at the heart of society is human nature and there is no way around this.

Crusading your entire life to change human nature because you long to be accepted by the majority is folly and a lost cause. I would point out there are still many people who view woman as property, listen to any rap song, ironically, that brings me to your slave point, I would argue the majority of people do not accept each other as equals and that they only pretend too on the very surface. It is no different with the gay community.

This though, is subjective and conjecture will not change anything. What is more finite is the word "rights" and what you perceive as being deprived of as far as "rights" go. This is what I would like to know from you, is there something other than state performed "marriage" that you seek?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by Durchlaucht
 





So, only being in the majority makes soneone more right??? Since when does the majority equal being correct. Many time throughout history it has been shown in time that the majority was clearly wrong. Should we brig back slavery, women as property, segregation and non bi-racial marriages? Those at the time were clearly a majority as well.


If you honestly take that away from my post I fear your emotions are clouding your reading comprehension. Being in the majority affords you the luxury of labeling other behavior that you deem different from the majority of the group you perceive yourself as belonging too. It affords that luxury because that is the way our society functions and it functions that way because at the heart of society is human nature and there is no way around this.

Crusading your entire life to change human nature because you long to be accepted by the majority is folly and a lost cause. I would point out there are still many people who view woman as property, listen to any rap song, ironically, that brings me to your slave point, I would argue the majority of people do not accept each other as equals and that they only pretend too on the very surface. It is no different with the gay community.

This though, is subjective and conjecture will not change anything. What is more finite is the word "rights" and what you perceive as being deprived of as far as "rights" go. This is what I would like to know from you, is there something other than state performed "marriage" that you seek?


And if you take away from my post "crusading my life to change human nature" then I offer you the same condolences. I dont give a flying # if someone likes me or accepts my "lifestyle". What I do expect as a US tax paying citizen is the same +-1,180 federal rights afforded by the federal government to your marriage. If that is special rights, then yes, I will take mine!



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
First off, I hate Bachmann with a mad fiery passion the likes of which I could never relate in words. That being said, so what about having gay people in America? There are gay people all over the world, there has been since as far back as we could write and keep records.


Is she really worth that degree of hatred? Most of her comments that I've seen, make me think that she probably suffers from borderline mental retardation.

I mean, don't get me wrong; I get steamed about certain people at times as well. In this day and age though, there's that many different possible people to get pissed off by, that you have to carefully choose your targets.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   


And if you take away from my post "crusading my life to change human nature" then I offer you the same condolences. I dont give a flying # if someone likes me or accepts my "lifestyle". What I do expect as a US tax paying citizen is the same +-1,180 federal rights afforded by the federal government to your marriage. If that is special rights, then yes, I will take mine!
reply to post by Durchlaucht
 


I wasn't speaking of you directly but to the gay community as a whole, there is a crusade going on as we speak and since I can get no one to speak of any rights except 1,180 rights afforded by state performed marriage, I have to assume the gay rights crusade is based on one right, that being marriage.

If this is the case, put my vote in, in your favor, I have been divorced twice and wouldn't dream of depriving anyone the enjoyment of losing your house and half your net worth in long drawn out court battle, misery loves company, grab your trunks and jump on in!

edit on 15-8-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join