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.

 

Gay marriage is not a 'human right': European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance

page: 12
13
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WatchRider

I never said that, I said the homosexual's need to get their own house in order before they'll be taken seriously.
In the closet there are no answers for them.

But to humour you have things really improved since the mainstreaming of gays?
They now have massive opposition that they never had back 'when they were in the closet'
If they'd sorted out the sodomites from the non-sodomites they wouldn't have the fundimentalists raging and dragging all and sundry into their midst.

The real answer is that sodomy is 'enjoyed' by the elites and it's they that encourage this to cause more problems for all in the long term.
The one's who encourage it or enjoy it are under the spell of sodomy that taints the gay folk.
The rabbit hole is a deep one and the answers it has aren't for the faint of heart...

Would you care to share the motivation for how you feel about homosexuals? You may have already have but I'm afraid I wouldn't know where to look.




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WatchRider

If they'd sorted out the sodomites from the non-sodomites they wouldn't have the fundimentalists raging and dragging all and sundry into their midst.

The real answer is that sodomy is 'enjoyed' by the elites and it's they that encourage this to cause more problems for all in the long term.
The one's who encourage it or enjoy it are under the spell of sodomy that taints the gay folk.
The rabbit hole is a deep one and the answers it has aren't for the faint of heart...

edit on 3-4-2012 by WatchRider because: Last sentence edit.


Seriously. What someone does behind the doors of their bedroom is not your or anyone else's business. It's not like gays (or anyone else) wear a big sign on their head saying "I participated in sodomy last night". So, how would ya even know????



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by WatchRider

If they'd sorted out the sodomites from the non-sodomites they wouldn't have the fundimentalists raging and dragging all and sundry into their midst.

The real answer is that sodomy is 'enjoyed' by the elites and it's they that encourage this to cause more problems for all in the long term.
The one's who encourage it or enjoy it are under the spell of sodomy that taints the gay folk.
The rabbit hole is a deep one and the answers it has aren't for the faint of heart...

edit on 3-4-2012 by WatchRider because: Last sentence edit.


Seriously. What someone does behind the doors of their bedroom is not your or anyone else's business. It's not like gays (or anyone else) wear a big sign on their head saying "I participated in sodomy last night". So, how would ya even know????


It is my understanding they would like priests to preside over the beds of known and suspected heathens to ensure they are having the correct type of sex - boring and soley procreational. Where priests are unavailable they might choose to appoint a missionary to preside over the sexy time.

If you smile or enjoy yourself even a little bit, you get the whip - unless that makes you smile more - and a sound lecture about how we must all worship something we can't prove exists and never enjoy anything unless it is walking around like a sad sack. You may enjoy looking like a sad sack but smiling is frowned upon.

Exemptions are made for members of the religious community who apply for a special sex permit, which allows you to smile during sex if you plan to conceive.

If you have butt sex or oral sex you are condemned to sex prison where you are held awaiting trial by god, when you die.

Whatever you do, remember - harmless fun is a sin.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Apparently same sex relationships are going to halt all procreation on the entire planet and humans will cease to exist in a few generations.

I'm going to need a better argument than that to give the subject more of my attention. Why this subject still gets so much attention eludes me. Just agree to disagree and move on to more pressing matters plaguing this planet.

There are millions still starving across the planet. Governments killing their citizens. Crime rampant on the streets and in governments.

Out of sight out of mind I guess.

Keep the people bickering over things that will never be solved even under the best of circumstances. Pity it takes disasters to make individuals realize whats important in their lives.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by cconn487
Just agree to disagree and move on to more pressing matters plaguing this planet.


Is this after Gays have full and equal rights in all things Heteros have?

Or are we to ignore that - - and move on to other things you deem "more important"?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Contrary to the beliefs of LGBT campaigners, there are FAR more significant issues plaguing humanity at present than whether a vocal minority's rights are being met to their own satisfaction.
edit on 4/4/2012 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Annee
 


Contrary to the beliefs of LGBT campaigners, there are FAR more significant issues plaguing humanity at present than whether a vocal minority's rights are being met to their own satisfaction.


Heaven forbid you should then speak out on the subject then as it would get in the way of your busy days saving the starving children of Africa?





edit on 4-4-2012 by Garfee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Annee
 


Contrary to the beliefs of LGBT campaigners, there are FAR more significant issues plaguing humanity at present than whether a vocal minority's rights are being met to their own satisfaction.
edit on 4/4/2012 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)


My thoughts exactly. So, we agree that we should just give all gays the full rights of marriage right now, and be done with it so we can move on.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


There are more important problems right here at home in Australia more worthy of discussion than Gay Marriage. Foreign policy, the rising cost of living, homelessness, sustaining a growing population, maintenance of infrastructure, the economy, asylum seekers and detention centres, employment figures...just to name a few.
edit on 4/4/2012 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Garfee
 


There are more important problems right here at home in Australia more worthy of discussion than Gay Marriage. Foreign policy, the rising cost of living, homelessness, social issues, sustaining a growing population, maintenance of infrastructure, the economy, asylum seekers and detention centres, employment figures...just to name a few.


Sorry but while I agree with you, I will not let me own issue alone simply because everyone else was too fuddy duddy back when we actually should have done this.

I finally feel like we can actually have debate about immigration and drugs and things which used to be taboo but that doesn't mean we should ignore what is already being discussed and debated.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


So your solution is to just grant privileges to groups of people who demand it without considering the long-term consequences?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


So your solution is to just grant privileges to groups of people who demand it without considering the long-term consequences?


What long-term consequences??? I thought you said this wasn't important enough to worry about???



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Changing the definition of a word that has brought forth progress and social cohesion for humanity for thousands of years just because a minority is demanding so is wrong. Appeasing the desires of a minority that falsely believes they are being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation is not an issue I would rate high on the agenda in terms of significance. Therefore, I do not believe it is right to blindly grant such privileges - rather we should concentrate on more important issues and once these are resolved, then concentrate on this issue.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


There are no consequences full stop, let alone anything long term.

Edit: Other than pissing off the relgious and the hillbillies.
edit on 4-4-2012 by Garfee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 




Therefore, I do not believe it is right to blindly grant such privileges


Priviledge?
So it's a 'priviledge' to be allowed the right to marry someone?

And exactly who are you, me or anyone else to decide just who has the 'priviledge' and who hasn't?

Truly amazing.

I agree that there are far more important things going on in this world than being overly concerned and bothered about what consenting adults are getting up to or what sort of arrangements and relationships they wish to be involved in.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Marriage is a privilege, not a right. If it were a right then anybody could get married under any circumstances. That includes under-aged individuals, arranged marriages where one party is not fully consenting, or people wanting to marry their relatives.

I don't think I am anybody special, I am simply expressing my opinion on an internet forum. People as a whole living in a society are supposed to be the ones who get to decide what is and what is not a privilege. At the moment, however, it is leaders of countries that mostly determine these things.

ETA: It is easy to stay on the sidelines and not voice your opinion on controversial topics. It is harder to come out and stand by your views knowing there are people that will disagree, and others who will ridicule and label you for doing so.
edit on 4/4/2012 by Dark Ghost because: eta



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Freeborn
It is easy to stay on the sidelines and not voice your opinion on controversial topics. It is harder to come out and stand by your views knowing there are people that will disagree, and others who will ridicule and label you for doing so.


You're preaching to the choir mate!



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Changing the definition of a word that has brought forth progress and social cohesion for humanity for thousands of years just because a minority is demanding so is wrong. Appeasing the desires of a minority that falsely believes they are being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation is not an issue I would rate high on the agenda in terms of significance. Therefore, I do not believe it is right to blindly grant such privileges - rather we should concentrate on more important issues and once these are resolved, then concentrate on this issue.


I don't even know where to begin with this argument. It's wrong on so many levels. First of all, gay marriage is not going to affect the definition of a traditional marriage in the least. Those who consider traditional marriage important will continue to have their traditional marriages. Nothing changes that.

Second, divorce has hurt marriages far more than gay marriage ever will.

Third, what exactly IS the definition of marriage? I expect you will say, a union of a man and a woman. Why? Because it takes a man and a woman to have children. So, it's all about children? So what is your word for a man and woman who get a marriage license, have a marriage ceremony in a church, but decide not to have children? Would you call that a marriage, or would you call that something else? And, how does that particular man/woman union affect "traditional marriage"? How has their type of union hurt marriage? It hasn't affected it at all, has it? Therefore, people marrying for non-traditional reasons doesn't affect traditional marriage. Gay marriage doesn't affect traditional marriage. See? It's really a non-issue,just like child-less marriages are a non-issue.
edit on 4-4-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by WatchRider

I never said that, I said the homosexual's need to get their own house in order before they'll be taken seriously.
In the closet there are no answers for them.

But to humour you have things really improved since the mainstreaming of gays?
They now have massive opposition that they never had back 'when they were in the closet'
If they'd sorted out the sodomites from the non-sodomites they wouldn't have the fundimentalists raging and dragging all and sundry into their midst.

The real answer is that sodomy is 'enjoyed' by the elites and it's they that encourage this to cause more problems for all in the long term.
The one's who encourage it or enjoy it are under the spell of sodomy that taints the gay folk.
The rabbit hole is a deep one and the answers it has aren't for the faint of heart...

Would you care to share the motivation for how you feel about homosexuals? You may have already have but I'm afraid I wouldn't know where to look.


I'll respond to this.

My motivation is too complex without a separate thread, no time to do that even if I wanted.
But basically I see a discourse, a 'thing' out of balance if you will, something massively so now which has been increasingly out of balance for a few decades.
The ways to correct or even the balance could of been done easily decades ago but the folks who were in a position to 'grasp the nettle' chickened out.
What do I mean by 'grasping the nettle'?
In the subject of the homo's / gays / sodomites:
They could of stopped the sodomites from hijacking the gay movement just like the feminists could of stopped the feminazi's from in their midst.
Instead the rot spread from within and has ended up with the sorry situation we have now where no-one is happy but a muddled, confused situation. Exactly how the ptb like it.


edit on 4-4-2012 by WatchRider because: amend.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by WatchRider
 


I personally appreciate your reply to my post.

Just one thing though - I associate the term 'sodomite' with the reference to one that partakes in anal sex and as a reference to the biblical city of Sodom and the story of Lot.

I feel like you're using it to describe evil and those who wish to control us?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join