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.
Originally posted by mugger
I do not agree with any government official or boat Captain performing marriages.
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.
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?
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."
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]
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
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........
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
reply to post by Durchlaucht
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!