Putting an End to the Gay Marriage Rhetoric

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood
"GOD says..."

Read my signature.

S & F btw.

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by TheOrangeBrood

 

It is not distracting from anything as multiple issues can be worked on at any given time. Our nation does not only address one thing at a time and move on and regardless it doesn't matter if it detracts or not. The people will decide what issues come to the forefront and if the people decide it will be this issue than that's the way it is.

Watch the GOP debate and tell me that we touched on "all of the important issues".

On this forum.

I dare you.

Sorry not understanding what your asking me there, still haven't had enough coffee yet.

I'm saying, among all of the Ron Paul supporters here on ATS, I'm extremely surprised to see someone saying that we "talk about things in politics", when in reality much of the important stuff is left out while these propagandist politicians scream bloody murder about petty issues.

If you watched the debate, you might remember Bachman going on about the same old gay marriage and abortion rhetoric for ages upon ages while Ron Paul answered very few questions in total, but they really dug into the REAL problems with the country. Bachman comes out on top after the straw polls... because people have been conditioned to "care" about nonsense so that people can continue doing some dirty stuff without anyone blowing their whistles at them.

I wouldn't say people have been conditioned to care about one thing over another. She was simply pandering on an issue the people felt was important which goes to what I was pointing out earlier.

You may say this is a non-issue but alot of people feel differently and are very vocal about it. Not every issue was discussed at the debate and honestly there wouldn't be enough time to hit on every issue. Enough people in this country care about the gay marriage issue whether you agree with them or not for it to be addressed by the politicians.

I'm not saying your wrong on the points you've made at all i'm just saying that you are wrong for thinking people should believe as you do. If people wanted to make a huge issue out of kids throwing snowballs and enough of them got together and started complaing to their representative that he better address it or they won't vote for him I can bet you will start seeing anti-snowball legislation.

People will dictate what's important at the moment and they don't need to be conditioned for it.

Originally posted by kro32
I wouldn't say people have been conditioned to care about one thing over another.

WHHHAAAT?



I could understand if you meant with this issue, but you clearly don't.. You actually think this is true as a general statement? I think you're on the wrong forum.

Propaganda is not a fairy tale.

Have you never taken a History course?

Have you ever watched Fox?

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood

Originally posted by kro32
I wouldn't say people have been conditioned to care about one thing over another.

WHHHAAAT?

I could understand if you meant with this issue, but you clearly don't.. You actually think this is true as a general statement? I think you're on the wrong forum.

Propaganda is not a fairy tale.

Have you never taken a History course?



Have you ever watched Fox?

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

Working on my second masters in history actually. What I meant by this statement was that yes propaganda can happen but only in certain cases and for a specific reason. People were not conditioned to care about the Casey Anthony trial nor are they condidtioned to be upset about gay-marriage.

They are being conditioned to show sympathy for our soldiers thereby gaining public support for our never ending military action.

Do you see the difference?

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood

Originally posted by kro32
I wouldn't say people have been conditioned to care about one thing over another.

WHHHAAAT?

I could understand if you meant with this issue, but you clearly don't.. You actually think this is true as a general statement? I think you're on the wrong forum.

Propaganda is not a fairy tale.

Have you never taken a History course?



Have you ever watched Fox?

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

Working on my second masters in history actually. What I meant by this statement was that yes propaganda can happen but only in certain cases and for a specific reason. People were not conditioned to care about the Casey Anthony trial nor are they condidtioned to be upset about gay-marriage.

They are being conditioned to show sympathy for our soldiers thereby gaining public support for our never ending military action.

Do you see the difference?

edit on 15-8-2011 by kro32 because: (no reason given)

Yes, I see the difference:

One is military propaganda.

The other is political propaganda.

Businesses produce propaganda.

People writing essays produce propaganda.

It's not a wartime-exclusive tirade. The word is broader in its definitions than you seem to understand.

Although, the propaganda that you mention is by far the most important one for Americans to start being more aware of.

reply to post by TheOrangeBrood


No I understand your point but you also should realize, which i'm sure you do, that people can have thoughts without propaganda which I believe this issue is. You may blame religious propaganda on the stance many people take on gay marriage I suppose but that conclusion can also be based on just the reading of the Bible.

That's why I believe this is an issue that motivates people without outside influences and is very similar to the abortion issue neither of which plays any significant role within the nation as a whole but does hold very deep feelings for a lot of people.

Thanks for the lively debate though.

Good topic

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood

Originally posted by Daedal
reply to post by TheOrangeBrood

 

The most important figure in a child's life is the same sex parent.I have nothing against anyone for their beliefs in the sanctity of marriage,but the outcome of the children raised in such an environment may sure be lacking a fundamental link to humanity.Distinction from who they are and what they are being taught to believe.How will a child,per say,male boy if growing up in a home with two females as his parents learn how to be a man?

Whose definition of "man"? Not all straight male parents are what I would call real "men". That doesn't necessarily mean that they are unfit to parent. And I really don't understand how you could possibly think that having specific genitalia defines someone and that's how it should be; that's a very primal mindset. I would go as far as to say that forcing your children into cookie-cut gender roles is more child abuse than not charing the same genitalia as them -- far more: gender stereotypes play a bigger part in juvenile suicide rates than anyone would care to acknowledge.

The continuity of the species is dependent upon the fact that woman have children and they certainly cannot due this without a male.

I don't think the population is going to suddenly disappear anytime soon. India alone considered, we could repopulate fully in 3 years from that country alone if the rest of the world was wiped out from "the contagious gays!" nonsense.

I don't know about this issue.
I can definitely see some social impacts in the future with individuals having no link to their identities as male or female.

A good place to put this foresight would be after such a statement..

Okay with that being said,I must ask you what you define as,"real men"?And furthermore no where did I indicate that homosexuals where contagious,you are drawing your own conclusions based off of what you think rather than what I said.I do agree that no time soon will our species be wiped out due to this.I am just merely thinking as a human who is subject to his/her own beliefs.
What one wills as their own is their perrogative to do so,it's just how much of this as a people can we accept as a cause of liberty to do this or that.I believe that the issue will be felt much further down the road than we percieve today.
And as you stated,"india alone could re-populate the world in 3 years.That may be true,but it would still take a male and a female to do so.And to try and live outside this fact to justify a means is ignorant.

Marriages is the most over rated thing right now.
Its a woman thing, that watched too much Disney movies.
It is an hypocrite situation as well too. Religion is hypocrite.
If you can't love someone under your own conventions then you are the one with a problem, not the other way around. Look the rate of divorce and someone is gonna tell me they believe in those kind of unions.. seriously.
Unless you say i want to get married because i'm greedy and i want mhhhoney. (if its the case, unfortunately money is not an answer).

There's one thing that scare me in life and its that everybody thinks they are right, truthful and important while we are just bugs. OP the world doesn't rotate around you and your arguments are not really addressing any issue( if a gay is married to a woman , hes not gay anymore or bi or whatever)

I think we should ban the wedding thing plus the religions altogether.
If i was narcissism enough i'd say "i've put an end to the rethoric."

Originally posted by Daedal
And furthermore no where did I indicate that homosexuals where contagious,you are drawing your own conclusions based off of what you think rather than what I said.

First of all, I need to say that I find it rather unbelievable that you bothered to show up here after being intellectually defeated by several people, and you have absolutely no argument to offer but continue to push the same, completely illogical "opinion" that is more of a subscription to a group-think than an "opinion" in my honest opinion.

Anyways, after making this statement, you proudly said this, and you see nothing wrong with it, so I'm going to have to assume that there are some wires crossed "up there":

And as you stated,"india alone could re-populate the world in 3 years".That may be true,but it would still take a male and a female to do so.And to try and live outside this fact to justify a means is ignorant.

Nobody denied that men and women make babies... who are you "arguing" with? A fictional voice in your head? Furthermore, I can only begin to imagine how many less problems India would have if gay people weren't demonized so much there. Natural population control such as homosexuality should not be subject to peoples' group-think "opinions".