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.

 

A Serious Question for the Gay Agenda.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Okay,

So I have one question that has rested with me since the dawn of this question about being gay and the right to marriage for those who wish to be married.

If you do not wish to answer w/e but here's the ?.

When you hit puberty..what was the first thing you looked at that made something...odd..happen down there..or for woman..I don't know what happens..Feelings I guess?

What I am getting at here..Is that I am trying to find the logic here...If being gay is not a choice like some say..is that the claim that they are making that when they first saw a member of the same sex in a provocative way they were aroused sexually? If so..Id say then it does not sound like there is a choice there. But for seriously..if not..I think those making the gay claim to fame need to stop. Because its ruining the dialog and those who do it for attention then stop only make the ones that are serious about it look less credible and makes Religious freaks think they can save you.

Its an honest question and I find it relevant because I know I LOVE woman and am not sure how a Man could ever not love the sight of a fine curved and blonde or brunette haired lady. But again..this was not my "choice". I was attracted to them from the get go.

So if you are gay..This ones for you or if you have some thoughts on this or hate..Shoot. All Ears because I wish to know and educate myself.




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Old77
If being gay is not a choice like some say..is that the claim that they are making that when they first saw a member of the same sex in a provocative way they were aroused sexually?


Yes. Most gay people knew they were attracted to the same sex when they first started having 'those feelings'. Many deny it for years, trying to make heterosexuality work for them, because society still looks down on homosexuality, but the feelings are there and eventually, they come out.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. It's no one's business whom I sleep with or whom I marry. I don't mess around in your personal relationships. Kindly stay out of mine.
And don't cry to the government to stick their nose in my personal relationships either.



Its an honest question and I find it relevant because I know I LOVE woman and am not sure how a Man could ever not love the sight of a fine curved and blonde or brunette haired lady. But again..this was not my "choice". I was attracted to them from the get go.


And gay people were attracted to the same sex from the get-go. They made their "choice" the same as you did.



I wish to know and educate myself.


That's very commendable.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Why does there have to be an agenda ? Love is love, whether you love the tree or your comb. Homosexuality has always been there, people have just chosen to embrace it. This has been in other societies, Romans, French and so forth.

Homosexuals are people too, they have thoughts, feelings and dreams just like the next man.
I really feel like I shouldn't have to explain this to you.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Old77 if you have to ask something this simple and basic I doubt you will ever understand. Mind your own business. Please. Another human being's sexuality is not your concern, so do us all a favor and recognize...
edit on 15-9-2011 by WoundedByHonesty because: ocd on spelling



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
It's pretty much what you said. I didn't really choose to be gay. When I looked at girls I saw people who would make good friends. When I looked at guys I saw people who made my heart flutter, and I would get really nervous around, and I would feel really self-conscious about myself.

That was high school, but this is now. I'm in a romantic relationship with a guy, I couldn't ask for a better boyfriend and I wouldn't want anyone else. When I look at girls I still see people who could be potential friends, and when I look at guys I definitely still get that primal feeling when I see an attractive guy. But I don't want to date them, I'd prefer them to be friends. I have my own guy, and I wouldn't want anyone else. But that doesn't mean I don't have the same urge to stare at the male physique.

Does that answer your question?

Oh, so as the OP finds the gentle curves of the female body aesthetic, I prefer the hard muscles of a toned man aesthetic, the chiseled jaw, that sort of thing.

edit on 9/15/2011 by Xaberz because: wanted to add something



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I actually have a question too.

Are homosexual relationships purely.. sexual?

I've talked to several homosexual people before, and one kind gentleman told me he was disgusted by the sight of a woman's.. privates. I don't know too many lesbians, though, so I'd actually like to educate myself as well.

And don't get me wrong.. I stand by my beliefs, in that I don't agree with homosexual relationships (not because I'm a Christian, though), but I love them all more than I'd let on. They're people too, and can be fun, humorous people to hang out with.. even though I get several gay men hitting on me from time to time, it's actually flattering, but I've only got an interest in women, 100%.

But, something happened to my brother not long ago, actually just the other week when he was at Disneyland. A man passed by him, stared at him and rubbed his chest very provocatively.. he was definitely humping him with his eyes.

Which.. leads me back to my question. Are homosexuals purely interested in.. sex? Because it seems every single one I've met seems so.. primal (as mentioned in the post above me). Primal urges, natural instincts.. that whole deal.

Am I wrong?
edit on 15-9-2011 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


A homosexual relationship is about as sexual as a hetero relationship. As in, there's far more to it than just sex. My partner and I do other things, like garndening, working, shopping, seeing friends, laughing and joking, discussing political issues, ironing, wallpapering, driving, drinking, dancing. It's the same as any other relationship. It's just that the 2 people are of the same sex.

And to answer the question in the OP. It's that same feeling you get when you look at a woman who you find attractive. For me, it's a set of broad shoulders and a hairy chest which makes my breathless and fluttery. Just like a womans asthetics make you feel. I didn't choose this, it's just what happens when I see someone who appeals to me. I tried like mad to be straight, thinking "I can't be gay, that happens to other people, not ME. I'm normal, I feel normal" It took me years to get over that.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


I've known a fair number of gay people, both male and female. And yes, it is incorrect to state that "gays" are interested only in sex.

To put it another way, gay people are no more obsessed with sex than are straight people. Some gay people, like some straight people, seem unable to think of anything else. But that is due to the proclivities of the individual, not because they are gay or straight.

To answer the OP, I am heterosexual, so for me yes it was girls. I have a good friend who is a gay woman, and for her it was also girls. For my sister, who is het, it was guys.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Open_Minded Skeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte
Are homosexual relationships purely.. sexual?


They are JUST like any other relationship.
Some heterosexual relationships are purely physical. (Same with homosexual relationships)
Some heterosexual relationships are based on love. (Same with homosexual relationships)
Some heterosexual relationships are monogamous. (Same with homosexual relationships)
Some heterosexual relationships are asexual. (Same with homosexual relationships)
Ahything you can say about a straight relationship hold true for gays.



But, something happened to my brother not long ago, actually just the other week when he was at Disneyland. A man passed by him, stared at him and rubbed his chest very provocatively.. he was definitely humping him with his eyes.


As a woman, shall I tell you about the gestures, words and other actions I've experienced by heterosexual men? Have you ever heard a group of straight men making catcalls to women? Does that mean all straight relationships are just about sex?


Primal urges, natural instincts.. that whole deal.


If you think only gays are like this, you're not hanging out with the right women.
Sex is ALL about primal urges and natural instinct. Some PEOPLE (straight and gay) are just more open about expressing it.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


I think you touch upon a very important issue, and if I may I'd like to give my impression on it.

So that guy who touched his chest, I don't think it is homosexuality that is his issue, I think its about knowing boundaries and respecting a person's space. That guy at Disneyland has an obvious issue with respecting a person and not caring if he will upset another person with his actions. Compare this to the stereotypical construction worker who whistles and gives cat calls to a sexy woman that walks by. It's a person who doesn't have respect for another person, and most likely its because he doesn't have respect for himself.

As for is a homosexual relationship only about sex? For some people it is. Some people only care about sex and they don't want a relationship. They would rather have a different partner every night. That was never me, however! Sex without love is meaningless. When I've done it in the past I've felt huge waves of regret. But when I have sex with the person I love it's so much more meaningful and fulfilling. And sex is definitely not my main focus in a relationship. For me, the relationship is about supporting each other, being each others ally, and helping each other grow into better people. It took me awhile to learn that, but once I had, everything made so much more sense in life.
edit on 9/15/2011 by Xaberz because: fixed a typo

edit on 9/15/2011 by Xaberz because: fixed a grammar mistake



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
In no way am I interested nor should we make in anyway public what we do behind the scenes in private. This was never my concerned or care. What is my concern is the argument behind gay marriage.

So we have established now.. That people get the basic primordial instincts to want to be with the same sex. Fine..In that case. I believe if we wish to respect the privacy of individuals you need not take your case to the federal governments or state governments to try and get a private organization to change the way it does business to recognize something it chooses not to.

You see.. Marriage is a choice..Gay is not a choice as we have established. You "Choose" to get married under the context of what a marriage is..Between a man and a woman. You are not "Choosing" to be gay..you just are.
One way or another you are going to want the benefits a married couple receives like death benefits or tax benefits. So why not a civil union?

You see. its not my claim that this is an agenda..but when a movement seeks to make changes to another establishment on the basis that they feel they are not getting the same fair "treatment" it becomes an Agenda..Was the civil rights agenda not to bring equal rights to all of color and none? It was not so that racism would disappear..it still exists just not as relevant. Instead it was so that people would all have the same "rights" like voting and going into public places.

I see no where saying gay's are not allowed. You are allowed in churches for god sakes haha..I see a particular segment of the action a church makes, to recognize a man and a woman as married under god, under attack by this agenda. Not in the name of love but in the name of Rights and recognition. One way or another your asking someone to validate you..and thats fine. But seriously? Why attack marriage and what it stands for? Is a Civil Union, in which the same benefits as married people will get..not enough for those "in love" individuals?

Where is the mutual ground here?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Old77
But for seriously..if not..I think those making the gay claim to fame need to stop. Because its ruining the dialog and those who do it for attention then stop only make the ones that are serious about it look less credible and makes Religious freaks think they can save you.


Whats a gay claim to fame?

I seriously doubt people are "acting" gay for the attention. Its mostly negative attention anyway. Many gay people try to act straight because of prejudice. So its the other way around, gay people act straight, straight people don't act gay.

What you may be observing is that when gay people, who have closeted a HUGE part of themselves, finally open up and be themselves they start expressing themselves. Some take this self expression a little too far and wear inapprioate clothing or say inappropriate things but its all harmless gay fun.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
With reguards to marriage, the main reason my partner and I had our relationship recognised by the goverment, was so that if anything happens to one of us, then the other won't loose the house. It's the things like that, being next of kin, and having rights of visitation on hosptials. Random mundane things which many people take for granted. I can see the argument for marriage in a church, but there are many gay christians who would like that right. I can't really see the harm in it, it's not effecting anyone else. Only them, making their lives better in their eyes. It makes sense to me to allow everyone the right to be just as unhappy as straight people
(old joke I know)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Old77
 


I feel like I have so much to say in this thread.

My main issue is that civil unions aren't the same as marriage. Under DOMA a same-sex couple can't file joint federal taxes as regular married couples can. Also, a same-sex couple cannot sponsor each other for naturalization like a regular married couple can. This is a big deal for me because my mother is from Vietnam, and my father was able to sponsor her to become a citizen. Also, I have very close friends who have been dating for years now, however they cannot live in the same country because one is a United States citizen and the other is a British citizen. Even if they had a civil union, the federal government doesn't recognize it like marriage, and they would not be able to live with each other unless the one in the UK got a work/student visa, which he is unable to obtain. It's really sad. So until those rights are given equally, I think it's fair for same-sex couples to want to change the laws.
edit on 9/15/2011 by Xaberz because: wanted to add something

"Under the Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex partners are not eligible for K-1 visas, even those with petitioners from states that otherwise allow same sex partners to marry." en.wikipedia.org...
A K-1 Visa is a visa that allows an engaged couple to allow the foreign partner to come to the United States.
edit on 9/15/2011 by Xaberz because: added a source



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Old77
In no way am I interested nor should we make in anyway public what we do behind the scenes in private. This was never my concerned or care. What is my concern is the argument behind gay marriage.

So we have established now.. That people get the basic primordial instincts to want to be with the same sex. Fine..In that case. I believe if we wish to respect the privacy of individuals you need not take your case to the federal governments or state governments to try and get a private organization to change the way it does business to recognize something it chooses not to.

You see.. Marriage is a choice..Gay is not a choice as we have established. You "Choose" to get married under the context of what a marriage is..Between a man and a woman. You are not "Choosing" to be gay..you just are.
One way or another you are going to want the benefits a married couple receives like death benefits or tax benefits. So why not a civil union?

You see. its not my claim that this is an agenda..but when a movement seeks to make changes to another establishment on the basis that they feel they are not getting the same fair "treatment" it becomes an Agenda..Was the civil rights agenda not to bring equal rights to all of color and none? It was not so that racism would disappear..it still exists just not as relevant. Instead it was so that people would all have the same "rights" like voting and going into public places.

I see no where saying gay's are not allowed. You are allowed in churches for god sakes haha..I see a particular segment of the action a church makes, to recognize a man and a woman as married under god, under attack by this agenda. Not in the name of love but in the name of Rights and recognition. One way or another your asking someone to validate you..and thats fine. But seriously? Why attack marriage and what it stands for? Is a Civil Union, in which the same benefits as married people will get..not enough for those "in love" individuals?

Where is the mutual ground here?


Actually, its straight people attacking gay people's right to marry each other. Would you get a "civil union" with your now wife? What do you call her? Your Union-mate? Your eternal girlfriend? Your wife?

Marriage is an idea. It has a history, it has social benefits, it has a reputation that "civil unions' do not. "Civil unions" are like the kiddie table at Thanksgiving. Its a BS, half hearted attempt to appease gay people. All while civil union advocates claim to be morally righteous and in line with God's teachings. Civil unions are a way for politicians to not take a side on the issue. Thanks for nothing civil union agenda pushers.

PS, I'm not even gay and I'm against marriage in general (outdated - invented when people died at 35). But civil unions are a joke and the only way to be truly EQUAL is to have the same word for the same love.
edit on 15-9-2011 by doctornamtab because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Old77
You see.. Marriage is a choice..Gay is not a choice as we have established. You "Choose" to get married under the context of what a marriage is..Between a man and a woman.


I did not choose to get married under any context of what marriage is. My marriage is what I MAKE it, not some pre-established construct that I try to fit myself into. My marriage is MINE and I define it. No one else can do that. It's simply none of their business.



One way or another you are going to want the benefits a married couple receives like death benefits or tax benefits. So why not a civil union?


Marriage vs Civil Union



Married couples have 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities


Civil union don't have ANY federal protections



You see. its not my claim that this is an agenda..but when a movement seeks to make changes to another establishment on the basis that they feel they are not getting the same fair "treatment" it becomes an Agenda..Was the civil rights agenda not to bring equal rights to all of color and none? It was not so that racism would disappear..it still exists just not as relevant. Instead it was so that people would all have the same "rights" like voting and going into public places.


And that is the same as the "gay agenda". To bring equal rights to gay people.
Gay people don't want to change marriage. They want to make their own marriages, as is the right of every American.



Is a Civil Union, in which the same benefits as married people will get..not enough for those "in love" individuals?


There is no such thing as a civil union with the same benefits of marriage. And if there was, I still wouldn't support it. Equality means just that. Not "separate but equal".
edit on 9/15/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I'm not gay, but I'm chiming in anyway.
When I was young (around 10 or so) I had a good friend, Jimmy. He was a year younger than me, and we got along like brothers when we were together. But even then I knew he was different. He was like me in that we climbed trees, played Army, were both too rambunctious for our own good. But he was quite effeminate, and sometimes wore his mother's makeup or clothes. I didn't know any better then, but since he was as close as a brother I didn't let it get to me. Sometimes when we were worn out from beating up on his little brother
we'd just walk and talk.

Looking back it was all quite innocent, and I can't imagine what he was feeling. I don't know if he felt he was different then. I wish I could have been there for him when he reached puberty since when he started to really be different, he had a hard time with it, and others gave him a hard time, too
. But when we reached our teens I didn't see him much as he moved and went to a different school. Later on, he fully "came out". Actually he went quite the other way and lives as a woman now. It's been years since I've seen or heard from Jennifer, as she's known now.

I don't know why, as I posted in my thread about gay marriage, why I was so against their marrying for so long. Having had many friends that were gay, and knowing that every one of them was born that way, I shouldn't have been so against it. But I'm not against it now, and I don't think anyone should be. If you believe in God, then you should believe that God made them, too. And you should believe that he wants them to be just as loved as we straight people are.

/TOA



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
if gay people want to get married, who cares?

just stop forcing it down peoples throats (no pun intended)

if the people of California vote against it 30 times. they dont want it, so stop trying to force the issue on the majority. thats why we vote on things.

govt and special interest groups need to stay out of churches just like churches should stay out of govt.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Old77
 


You, like many others, are confusing the legal contract called "marriage" with the religous component that some choose to add to their legal marriage contract.

Marriage, as defined in the United States, is a legal contract. Without that legal contract, two people are not married in the eyes of the law, even if they are "married" in a church. With that contract, they are married, even if they are married in somebody's back yard.

It is not the business of gov't in the US to tell a church whether or not they are to accommodate the religous component of a marriage between gay people, any more than it is the business of the church to tell the gov't whether or not to recognize legal contract marriages between gay people.

Religous influence is the leading factor in opposition to recognition of gay peoples' rights.

Calling gay peoples' marriage "Civil Union" while continuing to call straight peoples' marriage marriage is problematic... too easy to violate the constitutional protection of equal treatment under secular law.

I'd prefer to keep the name "marriage" for the legal contract that everybody has, and introduce Holy Matrimony to describe the optional religous component.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join