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.

 

Are people ignoring the facts about Homosexuality?

page: 27
29
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Believer101

Originally posted by blueorder
it is amazing how long threads can go when someone makes a reasonable point about not liking S&M displays in city centres which then results in other posters making the jump that opposing S&M parades makes you anti gay, that sort of deceit will never go without a response


Don't like it? Don't go to the city center that day. It's as simple as that.
I don't like documentaries, does that mean I'm going to go out and scream 'everyone who makes a documentary should be arrested' because of my opinion? No, it means I'm not going to watch them.
edit on 8/2/2012 by Believer101 because: Grammatical changes. :3



It has already been explained that in cities, that is right, cities, where you have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people living and visiting then clearly there are going to be a large number of people who have to be in certain places at certain times, or are unaware that grown men will be waddling around dressed as leather clad freaks, so spare me that argument, hardly the same as switching off the telly




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Believer101

Originally posted by blueorder
it is amazing how long threads can go when someone makes a reasonable point about not liking S&M displays in city centres which then results in other posters making the jump that opposing S&M parades makes you anti gay, that sort of deceit will never go without a response


Don't like it? Don't go to the city center that day. It's as simple as that.
I don't like documentaries, does that mean I'm going to go out and scream 'everyone who makes a documentary should be arrested' because of my opinion? No, it means I'm not going to watch them.
edit on 8/2/2012 by Believer101 because: Grammatical changes. :3



It has already been explained that in cities, that is right, cities, where you have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people living and visiting then clearly there are going to be a large number of people who have to be in certain places at certain times, or are unaware that grown men will be waddling around dressed as leather clad freaks, so spare me that argument, hardly the same as switching off the telly


Yeah, there may be a large number of people walking around that day, but since when do you speak for an entire city? While you may not like it, there are hundreds that support those parades. If there weren't, they would not have them. And no, I will not spare you this argument as it is in a sense the same. I'm not big on Christmas parades, but do I speak for my entire town? No, I don't. They speak for themselves. One person does not speak for an entire community. If you have to go to work that day, avoid the city center. If you work in the city center, avert your eyes. I don't enjoy witnessing people kiss in public, whether they are straight or gay, but do I try to take their right of doing it away? No, I just look away.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


I appreciate what you're trying to do, but he's been over this at least a hundred times and has shown no sign of changing his viewpoint. Best not to feed the troll.

Re-read the first line of your own sig



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 


Yeah, I know what you mean, but sometimes I enjoy it. It really entertains me when someone spews crud over and over without actually thinking properly.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by spocksleftear
 

Dear spocksleftear,

I may be misunderstanding your position, in fact I probably am. (See my signature) But what I'm getting from your most recent post is:

I think it is absolutely obvious that it is a civil rights issue and i would reject any argument that considers it to not be. . . . Prop 8 was not bad because it was put to a public vote, it is bad because it was putting to a vote the rights of a minority to get married.
All right, I see that there is no discussion here. Although the most recent decision was split 2-1, it's not absolutely obvious. If it was it would have been 3-0. And in the 9th Circuit, which gets reversed frequently and is known as either the most (or second most) liberal circuit. But my apologies, as you have indicated, we can't discuss this. So let me move to the bullying law.

Again, I'm not trying to fight, but to learn. I am under the impression that bullying includes a wide range of behavior. You are quite rightly pointing out that a mob of children surrounding a child and hurling abuse is one form of bullying, and a very hurtful and offensive kind. But aren't there other school policies besides anti-bullying under which the perpetrators can be punished? I would have thought so.

But by opposing the exemption aren't you saying that children can be punished for uttering a sincerely held religious belief? And not just children, but parents, teachers, or any employee. That's really taking away rights.

Would you consider discussing the possibility that the solution would be to leave the exemption in but ban the mob action or physical violence that you mentioned? It might be a solution.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


lol!

Im laughing because its all so funny when you give authority to the State just to get married!! Its all based in a belief in authority! Maybe if we didnt ASK the Govt to butt in, we would all be MUCH happier!



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rainbowbear
 

Dear rainbowbear,

Good point, and one I haven't seen discussed. I think a good argument could be made that the state doesn't marry anyone, only a church does. The state then recognizes the marriage and treats you differently for some purposes from a single person. Over time, that authority was given to people like ship's captains and justices of the peace.

My limited experience with talking to gays is that many, if not most of them, don't like the idea of two separate types of marriage, one "Civil Union," and the other, traditional marriage, even if the benefits are the same.

I agree with you, we don't need the state to get married, but we do need it to get some of the benefits that flow from it.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I did not say you could not make an argument on prop 8 not being a rights issue, I said I would reject said argument. Prop 8 resulted in a situation which was unconstitutional. Marriage has been tied into numerous very important benefits which I outlined. This gives one segment of the population advantages in law which another group does not get. There is no universe where that is not an issue of one segment of the population being afforded rights and privileges while another is denied it.


'But my apologies, as you have indicated, we can't discuss this'.

By all means discuss it, explain to me how it is not a rights issue, and know that by phrasing it the way you did, for trying to make it look like I was preventing you from discussing it, i wont be holding back and letting things slide as i have up to this point, and i will be nailing you down for cited answers from here on in, and you can start by explaining your position in detail as to why prop 8 does not constitute a rights issue when it forces the exact same recognition of DOMA which denies several right to gay couples which are afforded to heterosexual married couples, DOMA a law which you yourself stated ' throws up a wall for gays.'

You can then go on to explain why you tried to frame peoples problem with prop 8 in a way which totally avoids the content and effect of the bill on people and rather tries to imply that peoples issue was with the way it was passed.

'But if we object to Prop. 8 because the people voted for it instead of the legislature, why are we upset here where the legislature voted for it instead of the people?'

You can then go on to explain why you chose to initially approach the discussion of the anti bullying law and the work discrimination law by producing a totally sterile example of its use and by totally avoiding the rights issue in question respectively.

You can also consider gay rights on a world stage back on the table. You can be the most polite person in the universe, but when you made the comment you did it played directly at odds with the persona you have established in your posts.


'But aren't there other school policies besides anti-bullying under which the perpetrators can be punished? I would have thought so. '

One would think, and yet we had a rash of gay teen suicides and the necessity to bring in an anti bullying law so clearly some schools did not feel they had an obligation to deal with it.

'But by opposing the exemption aren't you saying that children can be punished for uttering a sincerely held religious belief? And not just children, but parents, teachers, or any employee. That's really taking away rights.'

But is it ok to take away these rights when it is not religious right? America specifically forbids laws against hate speech on the default setting. The law passed with or without the exemption limits the freedom of expression in this special situation of the school environment dealing with vulnerable kids who can and have be driven to suicide. What the amendment did was plead special exemption for religion. So you cannot make an argument on the grounds that it restricts freedoms while still supporting the bill overall which would continue to limit the right of freedom of speech/ expression with or without the amendment. If this limitation seems like something without precedent consider that libel and slander laws restrict a persons freedom of speech but they are there for a reason so absolute freedom of speech does not exist even in America contrary to popular belief.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mojo2012
 


HAHAHA yes i laugh whenever i hear that too. For so many reasons.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojo2012
God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve


That old cliche never fails to irritate the s**t out of me



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 


The way I see it he was probably taking the piss. And if he wasn't and actually believed it it is even funnier. XD



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by spocksleftear
 


After I flushed with rage, I started thinking about it, and I think we'd be better off if God DID create Steve instead of Eve...

Let's adapt Genesis 3 and see


Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to Steve, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?"

Steve said to the serpent, (in a stereotypical gay lisp) “No, silly! We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but Gawd did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die', and I ain't gonna mess with Gawd!"

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to Steve. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

And Steve did roll his eyes and flap his right wrist, saying, "I'm gonna check with Adam." And he called out to Adam, "Hey Adam~!"

And Adam called back from afar, (in a slightly forced effeminate voice) "Yeah hun~?"

And Steve replied "This slithery little rascal is trying to tell me that its okay to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil!"

So Adam came over and said (in a regular masculine tone) "Really? You mean we wont die?"

The snake nodded and repeated, "When you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Then Adam said "Well, I'm pretty sure God said that if we ate it, we would die. Besides, you're a snake. Snakes don't talk."

And the Snake saw that this was true and spoke no more and crawled away in shame.

Then Adam and his hubby heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and God called to them "Where are you?"

And Steve called out "Over here~!" so God went over and said "Ah there you are, I see you have resisted temptation."

Then Steve said "I've got all the temptation I need right here", eyeing up Adam's nakedness as he said it.

And Adam giggled and said "Oh stop it, you!" and they all laughed.

Then God said "Let there be cake!" and there was. And God and Adam and Steve ate of the cake. Forever. And God saw that it was gay.

THE END.

edit on 8/2/2012 by Glass because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


I totally agree with you.
I have already stated to this individual.....

Originally posted by vogon42

Originally posted by blueorder

and, as I said, in the CONTEXT of a parade through a city centre, if someone wanted to indulge in a public display of thong wearing for sex reasons, my opinion would be the same, regardless if the person is homosexual or not

. .............


Dude, if this is your stance, you might want to read the topic of this thread. Then realize you are off topic.

If you have an issue with S & M gear, then go start a thread about that. (this is not that thread)

I also might suggest you avoid your city center square, since it seem you have been traumatized there.


Apparently this is some one who just does not get it. Guess one just might as well go talk to a wall.

(and I dont care if the wall is rainbow colored or ...in this case blue.....to me a wall is just a wall)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 


Hahahah

One of the parts i always find vaguely funny is that god created man with no capacity to understand good from evil and right from wrong, then sets him a morality test which by definition he has no capacity to pass. XD In failing the test man becomes aware of the difference between right and wrong and as such why he failed the test.

Whatever else abrahamic faiths see their god as, he is surely the god of trolls.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
It has already been explained that in cities, that is right, cities, where you have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people living and visiting then clearly there are going to be a large number of people who have to be in certain places at certain times, or are unaware that grown men will be waddling around dressed as leather clad freaks, so spare me that argument, hardly the same as switching off the telly



So, you are trying to tell me that YOU are blaming your ignorance of your surroundings on some one ELSE.

Thats rich....real rich.

Its like if you live in a big city, and as you leave to work, you are stuck in traffic.
If you had just turned on local TV, radio, or web search......you would have KNOWN there is a wreck/traffic jam on Highway (what ever), and could have taken a different route.
Yet you did NOT do this, so it is some one ELSES fault.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


What are you waffling about speaking for an entire city, i am giving MY viewpoint, but it would be fair to say that most people would not wish to see leather clad s&m freaks strutting around a city, and for you to make a analogy shows your argument up to be the utter dung that it is.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by vogon42

Originally posted by blueorder
It has already been explained that in cities, that is right, cities, where you have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people living and visiting then clearly there are going to be a large number of people who have to be in certain places at certain times, or are unaware that grown men will be waddling around dressed as leather clad freaks, so spare me that argument, hardly the same as switching off the telly



So, you are trying to tell me that YOU are blaming your ignorance of your surroundings on some one ELSE.

Thats rich....real rich.

Its like if you live in a big city, and as you leave to work, you are stuck in traffic.
If you had just turned on local TV, radio, or web search......you would have KNOWN there is a wreck/traffic jam on Highway (what ever), and could have taken a different route.
Yet you did NOT do this, so it is some one ELSES fault.


What piffle is this, I have been fortunate to miss these attention seeking leather clad bell ends, others clearly will not have been so fortunate.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


OK, I see.
You ARE actually blaming your ignorance of your surroundings on some one else.

Wow, you have really firm ground to stand on with your opinion.

Also, from your other posts, the others your are blaming your problems on are not gay, just simply people wearing leather.

HA.....off topic, and ignorant (quite a combo you got going there dude)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glass
reply to post by spocksleftear
 


Then Steve said "I've got all the temptation I need right here", eyeing up Adam's nakedness as he said it.

And Adam giggled and said "Oh stop it, you!" and they all laughed.

Then God said "Let there be cake!" and there was. And God and Adam and Steve ate of the cake. Forever. And God saw that it was gay.

THE END.


I liked this. The central point I took from it, is that if people are already getting all of their needs met ("I've got all of the temptation I need right here,") they are a lot less likely to do things that could be genuinely detrimental to them.

As a somewhat related addition to this, I'm about to go and stay for possibly a number of months, with a group of people who include one man who, while I don't think is truly homosexual as such, is both extremely physically tactile, and effeminate both verbally and physically to a degree. He has a tendency to hug me in a very similar manner (caressing of my back, among other things) to what I used to experience from my ex-girlfriend, which can be disturbing at times.

My central problem where sexuality is concerned, is that while I consider myself to be very heterosexual physically, I have virtually never experienced the same level of acceptance or emotional intimacy from women, as I have from my own gender. I loved sex with my ex-girlfriend, (when she wasn't angry, which was most of the time, sadly) but even with her, most of the time there wasn't the same level of acceptance or trust that I've had from a number of guys. Women are just too different, and in my experience, they're generally a lot more concerned with what they can get from us, and whether or not we meet their superficial social requirements, than they are with accepting us as human beings.
edit on 8-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join