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.

 

One Million Moms rally at JcPenny's to fire Ellen Degeneres for being GAY!

page: 22
32
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Very well... attempting to bring logic to such a discussion as this is becoming tiresome anyway. My apologies for stating my opinions.

May you all find success in your quest.

Redneck out.

TheRedneck




posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by primus2012
 


The sad thing is you appear to be serious. Homophobia is an irrational fear of homsexuals, you learn to fear and hate what you don't undersand throughout your life, don't worry mate, you can't catch 'Gayness'. Whether Gay people choose to be Gay or are born Gay is irrelavent, the only reason why it has been villified for so long is because of 1000's of years of religious bigotry. Hatred is learned.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


wasn't logic so much as some kind of vendetta - she agreed with your suggestion that everyone is entitled to protest long ago

she stated that everyone is entitled to an opinion - way, way back

she wasn't saying anything different from many in this thread - myself included

logic wasn't your theme

I realize I'm in danger of getting myself slapped here - but you are a mod

it needed to be said



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Annee

I was responding to another post that said there was no contact info on the One Million Mom's website.

Again, it seems OK for you to do a thing that you denigrate others for doing. Yes, you can protest, go to sponsors, boycott... but so can others. That's equality.


I didn't do anything - - other then offer an answer to a question. The site had no contact info. It did show sponsors if someone wanted to go that far.

I did find contact info on the main site American Family - - and posted that in the next post.


We already agreed the constitution gives everyone the right of protest.



I was not aware you had agreed with that concept.


Yes - a couple of times. But that's OK - - I don't think anyone goes back and reads every post after they come back into a thread.
edit on 5-2-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Charmed707
 



Homosexuals don't have any less rights than anyone else. The 'rights' that are being fought for are nothing more than special privilege.


are same sex couples allowed to be married?

are they allowed the same benefits and privileges married couples enjoy?

how would giving them these rights be considered a special privilege?


If homosexuality itself is so valid, then why must it be touted as 'equal' to heterosexuality?


if people of color are so equal - why did they have to fight so hard simply to be considered human?

why don't you ask the people who denied them the right to be treated like the rest of humanity - it makes no sense to me

let me repeat that...this makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to most people. I'm not convinced you understand your own question - if you even have to ask


I personally don't care if people are homosexual, but to shove it down people's throats with methods such as forcing homosexual propaganda into schools is not acceptable.


describe this homosexual propaganda that's being forced on children in school - go ahead - let's see what you've got


Schools are for teaching, not preaching....and not for brainwashing or political agendas of sexually abnormal adults or anyone else.


please try to remember you just said this

it's brilliant

:-)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Annee

I was responding to another post that said there was no contact info on the One Million Mom's website.

Again, it seems OK for you to do a thing that you denigrate others for doing. Yes, you can protest, go to sponsors, boycott... but so can others. That's equality.


I didn't do anything - - other then offer an answer to a question. The site had no contact info. It did show sponsors if someone wanted to go that far.

I did find contact info on the main site American Family - - and posted that in the next post.


We already agreed the constitution gives everyone the right of protest.



I was not aware you had agreed with that concept.


Yes - a couple of times. But that's OK - - I don't think anyone goes back and reads every post after they come back into a thread.
edit on 5-2-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)


annee, you quite frankly, are lying.
Your entire point you spent like 20 pages making in the chick-fil-a thread was about the groups the owner chose to support.
You even tried to tie in and denigrate focus on the family and Dr. James Dobson in your witch hunt.
You are so disengenuous in this attempt it's sad.
You spend ALOT of effort making ties in order to protest and demonize through affiliation ALONE.

shame, shame, shame on you.
You are simply lying and that thread exposes the truth, and it's not how you are spinning it here.
I am not making ad hominum attacks here.
It's your own statements and your own hypocricy lead by bias alone.
It's like how you claim you were raised a christian in that thread and in this thread you were raised in a meta physical home, before new age was a fad.

No, you are simply lying in either this thread or that thread, take your pick.
Stop attacking others from your made up past and supposed history as a champion for equality.
Your equality is another persons oppression.
You cannot have it both ways, stop trying.
You attack others and groups you disagree with, thats all.
As you said, you keep it basic.
You left all the "clutter" behind. I guess that means you quit thinking of others and focus on ideology alone, based on your hypocrisy in posting on the same subject in different threads standing on either side of the fence.

You think you have a right to align people you don't know but have ideological differences with as having affiliations with hate groups like the kkk. You feel you get to take cheap shots at Redneck by denigrating southern states with stereotyping blanket statements of the same evoking past racial problems. You are basic as you say, basic in painting with a broad brush demonizing everyone you disagree with....but without the clutter..lol

puhlease. You equate the kkk with moms yet you are following Albert Pikes (the founder of the kkk)script completely in practice. You feel somehow you have the right to throw racist claims around in hopes of drumming up sensationalism support without an ounce of accountability to your own hateful rhetoric at others here and the groups you have chosen to demonize and you will use any claim to do it.

No annee, you are the most hateful, unreasonable and simple minded poster on this site that I have encountered and you will use your kids, your mom, your family and friends as bouncing off points to serve your personal agenda, which is your right I guess, but you accuse others of doing it as being wrong and hateful and being like the kkk. This was about the right to petitionand address grievances but your back handed insults are the tell that you are disengenuous and very very hateful and continue in endeavors to discredit others with lies and inuendo as to derail the thread into personal attacks by grouping people into the box you prepared for them from the blackness in your own heart.
.
This post might deserve to be deleted, but so should a large percentage of yours for the same reasons. I read you as a champion...for hypocrisy and spin.....but without the clutter..



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Do you actively seek to associate with groups/individuals whether it be hetrosexual, gay, republican, democrat, or any groups/individuals that you have no common interestes with. And, whose values are different than yours. I seriously doubt it. However, if you do your are indeed an exceptional person. These million moms are just voicing their displeasure with a company who chose to hire a controversial individual for their spokes person. They did not have any common interests or values with this spokes person and in their opinion it was a bad choice by J.C. Penny Company. They have the right to voice their opinion no matter what you or I think.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by suspicious22
These million moms are just voicing their displeasure with a company who chose to hire a controversial individual for their spokes person. They did not have any common interests or values with this spokes person and in their opinion it was a bad choice by J.C. Penny Company. They have the right to voice their opinion no matter what you or I think.


Yes they have the right.

Just voicing their displeasure? You make them sound so innocent.


One Million Moms/One Million Dads project One of AFA's (American Family Assc) creations is One Million Moms and One Million Dads, two websites with the goal mobilizing parents to "stop the exploitation of children" by the media. It organizes boycotts and urges activists to send emails to mainstream companies employing advertising, selling products, or advertising on television shows they find offensive. The "One Million" in the titles of the projects appears to be a completely arbitrary number, as it is not based on any actual survey of group members, let alone how many members might be mothers or fathers. en.wikipedia.org...




Labeled a hate group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), in a 2005 report, stated that the AFA, along with other groups, engaged in hate speech to "help drive the religious right's anti-gay crusade." Mark Potok of the SPLC determined that the turning point was 2003's Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court struck down Texas's anti-sodomy laws. After that, the Christian right spent millions on advertisements, and on pastor briefings organized by activists such as born-again Christian David Lane. Lane helped AFA put constitutional opposite-sex marriage amendments on the ballots of 13 states. In November 2010, the SPLC changed their listing of AFA from a group that used hate speech to the more serious one of being designated a hate group. Potok said that the AFA's "propagation of known falsehoods and demonizing propaganda" was the basis for the change. The AFA was greatly displeased with the designation as a hate group, calling the list "slanderous". In response to the SPLC's announcement, some members of the Christian right "call[ed] on Congress to cut off their funding." J. Matt Barber of The Washington Times said that the SPLC was "marginalizing" themselves by giving the AFA the same hate group designation shared by the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

are same sex couples allowed to be married?


Marriage is not a right.


are they allowed the same benefits and privileges married couples enjoy?


This is no more discriminatory against homosexuals than polygamists, two old sisters cohabiting, or people who simply don't believe in marriage.


how would giving them these rights be considered a special privilege?


Again...not rights. Demanding marriage be redefined and claiming it as your 'right' is an indication of a sense of entitlement.


if people of color are so equal - why did they have to fight so hard simply to be considered human?


'People of color' are not the only racial groups to be treated as subhumans. No human being is 'equal' to another human being. People are individuals.

If homosexuals themselves are comfortable with their sexuality, they wouldn't feel the need to tout it as 'equal' to heterosexuality. They would have no qualms about accepting that it's NOT the same.


describe this homosexual propaganda that's being forced on children in school - go ahead - let's see what you've got


You mean you're completely unaware of 'teaching tolerance' infiltrating schools? What about young children having to read such non-sense as 'Heather Has Two Mommies'? Then there's this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


please try to remember you just said this


What's your point? Religious conservatives have their own private schools. They don't need to bring their propaganda to public schools. Liberals need to do the same- branch off from the public school system and get their own private schools where they teach 'tolerance', homosexuality, white guilt, 'gender-neutral' language, etc. If such things are so important to teach to your children, then surely libs would have no problem paying extra for it. Leave public schools to focus on the 3 R's and leaving kids with actual knowledge and skills, free of any political slant. Public schools have become clown schools ever since cultural Marxism has seeped its way in.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707
Marriage is not a right.


We are talking LEGAL GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE along with all the benefits/privileges it affords - - that are not available to American citizens by any other means/contract.

EVERY citizen should have the same equal rights by government law. And as our government is secular - - religious reasoning is not acceptable to deny this right.

How is marriage not a right in this country?



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charmed707
What about young children having to read such non-sense as 'Heather Has Two Mommies'?


Why is that nonsense?

It is an everyday fact and part of life in today's society.

Imagine - - - tolerance beginning with the young. Who'd a thunk it?



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
You know what I find interesting is that counterculture in the 60's was that free love meant that people should be able to live together without that darned piece of paper that chained you to someone legally like a ball and chain. It was counterculture practice to attack the traditional institution of marriage. This had it's part in the attempt by leftists to destroy our culture and part of the communist subversion. Now, today, since traditional values were altered and nobody cares anymore if you get married or have children out of wedlock, the next step in destroying the natural family is to demand that gays have a right to marry, and in doing so, redefine what marriage is, thus destroying the traditional archetype of the family even further.
So we've gone from "who needs that piece of paper to be happy" to "why can't gays have that piece of paper too".

Interesting transition.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You know what I find interesting is that counterculture in the 60's was that free love meant that people should be able to live together without that darned piece of paper that chained you to someone legally like a ball and chain. It was counterculture practice to attack the traditional institution of marriage. This had it's part in the attempt by leftists to destroy our culture and part of the communist subversion. Now, today, since traditional values were altered and nobody cares anymore if you get married or have children out of wedlock, the next step in destroying the natural family is to demand that gays have a right to marry, and in doing so, redefine what marriage is, thus destroying the traditional archetype of the family even further.
So we've gone from "who needs that piece of paper to be happy" to "why can't gays have that piece of paper too".

Interesting transition.


Could it be that the counterculture was against the state's involvement of marriage? I would agree that the state has no right to involve itself in marriage -- however the state feels differently. Thus, if you want legal rights as someone's spouse, you need to get a marriage license from the state.

I still don't understand how gays getting married has any affect on heterosexual marriages. Heteros can and do continue to get married, have families, picket fence, 2 cars, 3 kids, a dog, etc. etc. Gays getting married is not going to stop that at all. If you are worried about the traditional archetype of marriage and the family, you should be looking more closely at the divorce rates of heterosexual marriages.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 




You cannot have it both ways, stop trying.


such a ridiculous thing to say...

you absolutely can have it both ways :-)

I myself have argued many times against some things and then for other things - I'm guessing you have too

now, what are you really trying to say?


You attack others and groups you disagree with, thats all.


and your point is?

do you know where you are?

please explain your logic (if you can) - just not getting it

:-)


edit on 2/5/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You know what I find interesting is that counterculture in the 60's was that free love meant that people should be able to live together without that darned piece of paper that chained you to someone legally like a ball and chain. .


Open and understanding - - yep that's you


The 60s was about anti-establishment - - all of it.

It wasn't an attack on marriage.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 





Could it be that the counterculture was against the state's involvement of marriage?


Ok let's clarify this point then. If the counterculture wanted the State out of their desire to live together, then why do Gays need the State to live together? Could it be that this is more about visiting dying people in hospitals and getting health insurance or what happens to the estate when someone dies? Taxes? inheritances? Or is it a need to be accepted by society?
Clearly Gays want the State involved if they are demanding laws be changed.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

So we've gone from "who needs that piece of paper to be happy" to "why can't gays have that piece of paper too".



Because its about the legal stuff government marriage affords.

Legal rights that belong to every citizen.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You know what I find interesting is that counterculture in the 60's was that free love meant that people should be able to live together without that darned piece of paper that chained you to someone legally like a ball and chain. .


Open and understanding - - yep that's you


The 60s was about anti-establishment - - all of it.

It wasn't an attack on marriage.



Once again you are attacking my personal character, par for the course Annee. You have complete disregard for anyone with an opposing viewpoint to yours. You have absolutely nothing on me in the open department.
There is a difference between broad-mindedness and narrow-minded agendas.
My commentary was on an observable trend and you responded with a personal attack.

You clearly have an issue with traditonal concepts, and of course that's your right.

It is a fact that communist and leftist subversion has been an agenda for decades since the communist revolution first appeared in Russia when the Bolsheviks brutally murdered the czar and czarina and their entire family, with blood splattered on the back of the wall. Destroying the traditional family in any way shape or form is only part of the agenda, but Karl Marx was adamant that the bourgeois family must be murdered and replaced by the Supreme State.
edit on 5-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Once again you are attacking my personal character, par for the course Annee.


Uh huh.

Vicious attack - using your own "declaration"


edit on 5-2-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You know what I find interesting is that counterculture in the 60's was that free love meant that people should be able to live together without that darned piece of paper that chained you to someone legally like a ball and chain. .


Open and understanding - - yep that's you


The 60s was about anti-establishment - - all of it.

It wasn't an attack on marriage.


An attack on marriage as a cultural institution yes of course it was. Only a fool would not admit that. You have selective thinking Annee

Perhaps you are unwilling to admit that no one cares anymore if gays cohabitate, but they do care if the instution of marriage and the Holy Family is changed.
edit on 5-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join