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.

 

Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals.

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+11 more 
posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I know, it seems shocking but its true. Your sexuality does not define your rights as an American citizen. If you are in the LBGT community nothing has been taken away from you or denied from you. You have equal rights to marry the opposite sex just like heterosexuals do. Heterosexuals also cannot marry the same sex, just like homosexuals cannot. There is a reason for this, it is because marriage is defined by its very incarnation as being between a man and a woman. The idea is that the marriage of a man and a woman will produce offspring which helps grow the economy, that's why married couples get tax breaks. Its an incentive to grow the populous, growth of the populous increases the GDP. Personally I believe that the government should get out of the marriage business, it should be strictly a religious and personal matter.

Some may argue that you do not have a choice in being a homosexual, but you do! You chose to act on your emotions and homosexual urges. Engaging in homosexual activities and acting outwardly homosexual is a choice, no one forced this on you. I know a very effeminate man who seems very homosexual. He has all the homosexual tendencies and is even attracted to other men. He chose not to engage in homosexual activity because he believes it is the wrong thing to do. Today he is happily married to a woman and has three children. This may seem shocking to some of you but just because you feel a certain way does not mean you have to act out this way.

Some of you may feel this post is anti-gay, its not. I am just stating the facts objectively. Remember, sexuality is not democracy. You make the choice to act out on your urges or not to. Sex does not equal love, remember that.




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
I know, it seems shocking but its true. Your sexuality does not define your rights as an American citizen. If you are in the LBGT community nothing has been taken away from you or denied from you. You have equal rights to marry the opposite sex just like heterosexuals do. Heterosexuals also cannot marry the same sex, just like homosexuals cannot. There is a reason for this, it is because marriage is defined by its very incarnation as being between a man and a woman. The idea is that the marriage of a man and a woman will produce offspring which helps grow the economy, that's why married couples get tax breaks. Its an incentive to grow the populous, growth of the populous increases the GDP. Personally I believe that the government should get out of the marriage business, it should be strictly a religious and personal matter.

Some may argue that you do not have a choice in being a homosexual, but you do! You chose to act on your emotions and homosexual urges. Engaging in homosexual activities and acting outwardly homosexual is a choice, no one forced this on you. I know a very effeminate man who seems very homosexual. He has all the homosexual tendencies and is even attracted to other men. He chose not to engage in homosexual activity because he believes it is the wrong thing to do. Today he is happily married to a woman and has three children. This may seem shocking to some of you but just because you feel a certain way does not mean you have to act out this way.

Some of you may feel this post is anti-gay, its not. I am just stating the facts objectively. Remember, sexuality is not democracy. You make the choice to act out on your urges or not to. Sex does not equal love, remember that.


I personally support gay marriage, but I can see your side of the coin too.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote


Such unions have now been refused in all 31 states where the issue has been put directly to the electorate.

Five states have legalised gay 'marriage' - Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa - but all did so through legislation or court rulings.

DailyMail


Many people feel that marriage is a union between a man and a women.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
marriage is defined by its very incarnation as being between a man and a woman. The idea is that the marriage of a man and a woman will produce offspring which helps grow the economy, that's why married couples get tax breaks.


And when, in your mind, was marriage's 'incarnation?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


I am just stating the facts objectively.





There is nothing objective about your OP...subjective would be the operative word.


Actually, it could be said that your take on the issue is nothing short of ignorant and indicative of someone who is clearly not in touch with mainstream society...


You might want to consider joining a cult - it may be your only chance of social interaction.





posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo

Some of you may feel this post is anti-gay, its not. I am just stating the facts objectively. Remember, sexuality is not democracy.


No. You are not stating facts objectively. You are writing this post from the perspective of being "anti-gay" and have made the mistake in interpreting the world based upon your bias. The institution of marriage is, first and foremost through out history, about the protection of property. This is why most cultures in the world have some form of dowry. Look at history, it is filled with stories of marriages arranged for the purposes of consolidating money, land and power. Love was rarely a factor. You are right in stating that historically marriage's primary component has been economic. And that economic component has been the preservation of property (or capital in the Smithian lexicon).

So, as an American what can we say about the "right" to marriage? I think the best quote comes from John Locke, the intellectual mentor to the American founding fathers. So what did Mr. Locke say when it comes to role of government and rights:



Goverment has no end, but the preservation of property.


And while I believe our views have evolved over the last few hundred years, Mr. Locke is correct that at its base level, this is the core responsibility of government and what separates civilization from anarchy.

But you brought up the "right to marriage" and the idea that it must be (for economic purposes) be limited a man and a woman.

Mr. Locke also has something else to say that might be apt.



“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.”


There is no economic justification to only grant the right of marriage to only men and women. In the future, there is little doubt in my mind that the mental gymnastics that individuals use to justify their alienating viewpoints will be looked at with disgust.

Just my two cents.
edit on 9-5-2012 by LordOfArcadia because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2012 by LordOfArcadia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by LordOfArcadia
 


As long as government subsidizes marriage though the use of tax breaks, they get to define exactly what a marriage is. In the recent cases democracy was used and the people voted that marriage is between one man and one woman. Not one judge has the right to overthrow the will of the people in this case. Personally I believe that anyone should be able to marry anyone but it should be a private matter and not a matter of the government. The entire tax code needs an overhaul but that subject deserves its own thread.

In a nutshell, there would not be an argument about gay/straight marriage if marriage licenses did not exist.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


Even if being gay were a choice, it wouldn't matter. People should not be denied marriage just because of their sexuality. Marriage is also a spiritual idea, and in some spiritual beliefs because gay is awesome and we have freedom of religion.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 



You have equal rights to marry the opposite sex just like heterosexuals do.




Ok, this is going to be hard for you to understand, but bear with me. Some people don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex, they don't want to be married, just to be married, they want to marry someone they love.


Personally I believe that the government should get out of the marriage business, it should be strictly a religious and personal matter.


What if you aren't religious? Are you saying that Atheists don't deserve to get married because they don't believe in a god?


Today he is happily married to a woman


If he is as you say, I doubt he's truly happy. Either that, or you are projecting, believing that he is gay but chooses not to be, when in fact, he may not actually be gay at all.

If you don't want to marry someone of the same gender as yourself, my suggestion is that you don't marry someone of the same gender as yourself. Seems simple enough to me.

Why deny two consenting adults their god given right to pursue happiness?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I agree with the OP, even tough I support gay marriage. But with one little exception:



Some may argue that you do not have a choice in being a homosexual, but you do! You chose to act on your emotions and homosexual urges.


"Being a homosexual" means being attracted to the same sex. Acting on it is not what the word means. So no, it is not a choice to be a homosexual. It is a choice to have sex with the same gender, tough.

EDIT: I think the best solution would be for government to get out of marriage completely, making this whole non-issue go away.
edit on 9/5/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   
I just fail to see why we as humans must constantly repress our feelings and emotions because we fear outside ridicule.

What gives another human being any right to tell me what to do with my body? The government cannot decide what is best for you, they think they can, but they do not know what makes you personally happy.

Many things aren't accepted by society, and you repress your emotions, thoughts, your style and color of life and shape everything from your thoughts to your appearance to fit in with society. So you won't be ridiculed or questioned.

So after all of your conditioning, and repressing of emotions, who are you? You're not yourself, you're not what you want to be, you don't do what you'd like to do. You are the government, you are TPTB and whatever they want to shape you to be. You lose yourself in caring about these things.

And I guarantee your friend that is interested in men isn't totally happy. I bet he longs to try other men, and experience the things HE wants to experience. And I'm positive he would if the government didn't try to regulate every aspect of your life from what you eat, to what you wear, to who you have relations with and in the end, who you are.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


I want to know why Gay people want to be allowed to marry. Is it for the simple benefits that society affords the union of marriage? Or is it because it really pisses off christians?

If, as you say, you want to be with someone you love... What the hell does what anyone else think about your relationship, matter? "Oh they're married. That's great!" Big deal. Many heterosexuals don't even care that much about marriage.

If it's about being accepted, then why make it apparent that it's simply a hurdle/obstacle to overcome. Why?

"Marriage? What is this... I don't care for it." "Oh you mean they tell me I can't get married? WHY DAMN THEM!! I DEMAND MY RIGHTS!"

It's all a bit stupid if you ask me. Like a guy protesting at every opportunity because he's not allowed to play netball on an all girls team. It's discrimination I tell you!

The fact he can still play netball is not his issue, he just wants to make a noise.

It's not about marriage at all. It's about being seen as equal in a relationship with the person you love, and being afforded the same rights as every one else.

And if you are unaware, homophobia is the new racism. So I just wish it would stop being a purposeful problem for problems sake, and get down to it. Fighting for rights that all couples have in the region of your choice, should outweigh a stupid piece of paper that proves you love someone, to someone else you really don't give a toss about.

Lets ban Marriage - then everyone can be equal.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Am i allowed to share my opinions regarding homosexuals? The problem i have is people jumping on the band wagon pointing fingers and in uproar because when people share honest opinions they are branded homophobic.

The truth is blatantly obvious. If the world was all homosexual or lesbian life expectancy of the populations would be approximately 100yrs.
We will cease to create.
Populations numbers will soon fall.

God made man and woman for a reason, to go and fill the earth.

What i would like to know is,
Is there anything that we are not being told that influences sexual preference or changes sexuality?

Stranger things are happening right now that many fail to see.
Take ADHD for instance, parents told to give their children Ritalin?????
Ritalin
Ritalin AKA Methylphenidate
Adverse effects

Adverse effects Some adverse effects may emerge during chronic use of methylphenidate so a constant watch for adverse effects is recommended.[39] Some adverse effects of stimulant therapy may emerge during long-term therapy, but there is very little research of the long-term effects of stimulants.[40][41] The most common side effects of methylphenidate are nervousness, drowsiness and insomnia. Other adverse reactions include:[42] Abdominal pain Akathisia (restlessness) Alopecia (loss of hair) Angina (chest pain) Appetite loss Anxiety Blood pressure and pulse changes (both up and down) Cardiac arrhythmia Diaphoresis (sweating) Dizziness Dyskinesia Euphoria Headache Hypersensitivity (including skin rash, urticaria, fever, arthralgia, exfoliative dermatitis, erythema multiforme, necrotizing vasculitis, and thrombocytopenic purpura) Lethargy Libido increased or decreased Nausea Palpitations Pupil dilation[43] Psychosis Short-term weight loss Somnolence Stunted growth Tachycardia (rapid resting heart rate) Xerostomia (dry mouth)


Also

Legal status Internationally, methylphenidate is a Schedule II drug under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances.
In the United States, methylphenidate is classified as a Schedule II controlled substance, the designation used for substances that have a recognized medical value but present a high potential for abuse.
In the United Kingdom, methylphenidate is a controlled 'Class B' substance, and possession without prescription is illegal, with a sentence up to 14 years and/or an unlimited fine.
In Canada, methylphenidate is listed in Schedule III of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (along with '___', psychedelic mushrooms, and mescaline, among others), and is illegal to possess without a prescription, pursuant to Part G (section G.01.002) of the Food and Drug Regulations under the Food and Drugs Act.
In New Zealand, methylphenidate is a 'class B2 controlled substance'. Unlawful possession is punishable by six-month prison sentence and distribution of it is punishable by a 14-year sentence.

So can someone tell me WTF IS GOING ON HERE WITH OUR KIDS!!!!



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


Personally I believe that the government should get out of the marriage business, it should be strictly a religious and personal matter.

If treated as such, then the government should remove all protections and incentives based on marriage.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


As long as government subsidizes marriage though the use of tax breaks, they get to define exactly what a marriage is. In the recent cases democracy was used and the people voted that marriage is between one man and one woman. Not one judge has the right to overthrow the will of the people in this case. Personally I believe that anyone should be able to marry anyone but it should be a private matter and not a matter of the government. The entire tax code needs an overhaul but that subject deserves its own thread.

In a nutshell, there would not be an argument about gay/straight marriage if marriage licenses did not exist.

It wasn't too long ago that a different generation of bigots was using the same arguments that you are -- that marriage should only be between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman. The rights of individuals in this country are not dictated by rule of the mob or the laws they enact when they run counter to the Constitution. That's exactly why judges expressly have the right to overthrow the will of the people. Are you seriously asserting that popular laws should be allowed to stand when they are in direct violation of the precepts of the Constitution?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
While the op has placed a few arguments in his opinion, the very thing that the OP fails to see when it comes to the argument on Gay Marriage, is that it does affect many people, not just Gay people, but all people. This is not about straight or gay, but about the freedom of Choice.

While the Op is correct that gay men and women have the right to marry members of the opposite sex, the very laws that are being put out, start to infringe on the rights of all, right now it is stopping 2 people of the same sex from getting married. What is next, stopping 2 people who are of different religions, after all that is not what the original founders had in mind when they set up the country and evidence in history all state that they could not stand someone who was of a different spiritual belief than they were.

While one says that it is a choice to engage in such, the op fails to also take into account that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and such can be used for argument against straight marriage, that straight people act on those urges and should not be just willing to jump into marriage, and simply refrain from such.

The final argument as I stated earlier is the freedom of choice, that is the bottom line, of who a person wants to spend their life with together for the rest of their natural lives, and ultimately have who they consider as their family in their lives. So while this may seem like a good idea, that the very nature of family is defined by the government, but do not forget that once a door legally has been opened, it can not be so easily closed, so today the government defines marriage, tomorrow they can very well open it a bit further, and further define that door by what they so choose to, further placing more restraints on who can and can not get married, what all they would recognize as being a legal marriage.

At one time, it was against the law for 2 people of differencing religions or even skin color from getting married, and after years of legal challenges that was overturned.

The Op mentions about a man who is not so masculine, having gotten married, and had three children, well according to the facts, so did John Wayne Gayce, he got married, had children, and was ultimately found out that he was gay and went out behind his wife’s back. He also turned out to be a serial murder. One must wonder, what he would have turned out being, if being gay was accepted when he was growing up, if he would have turned out different.

I do agree with the OP, that the government should get out of the marriage business, and leave it up to the religious institutions to determine if and who they will marry. But then again, from a not so distant past, there was the case of where a church determined and decided not to allow for an interracial couple from attending their church or wedding the 2 of them. So should the government stay fully out of religious affairs, yes, will there be discrimination in the area of religion, yes.

But would you deny a couple who have been together for years, the very rights and protections under the law just cause they are a same sex couple? Is that not the very essence of discrimination, setting one group above another all based on one thing?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Unhappy people telling happy people what to do so they feel better. Thats all I see when sexual preference comes into a conversation. Its a preference, nothing more, nothing less. To try and regulate it is in my opinion, futile.

Lets not talk about the pillaging of citizens funds and human rights around the planet by corporations and governments. Lets keep going on the merry go round of social issues that should have been solved by now by a society that realizes what is and is not important.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Equal rights for all.

Special rights for none.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   

'Nuff said.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
How many more of these "I am not a Homophobe BUT..." threads are there going to be started by STRAIGHT people? It seems as though there is new one every week!
Have you straight people got nothing better to do than butt your noses into the gay residents of the planets bedrooms? How boring your lives must be!
And to all of you who keep saying "If the entire planets population was gay we would die out" I ask you, What's the chance of the entire planets population being gay? Exactly ZERO!
And do try and keep in mind that all of these gay people that you are attempting to keep down are born to you, you made us, you our straight parents!
Any straight folks here want to earn some flags and stars? Start an anti-gay thread!!!!!




top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join