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: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaltireWarrior
I'm from the UK and I have to say I am disgusted with the Americans.

Here gay marriage really isn't a big deal. Being gay isn't a big deal.

Why?

Because we seem to be more mature than some of you Americans who are happy to deny people their fundamental right to free will and choices, but it's the same people denying these rights to gay people who start moaning when the big bad government restricts their rights.

They are all a bunch of hypocritical, discriminating fools who need to get their head out the bible and ancient times and into the 21st centuary.



Precisely the reasoning behind me and my partners plans to leave the country. I'm tired of living with hypocrites.


This country was founded on freedom OF AND FROM religion. Imposing religious ideals onto others is so third reich




posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:23 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. You make the choice to act out on your urges or not to. Sex does not equal love, remember that.


since you are fond of facts (hey, we share this passion, I'm fond of them as well),
can i add to this debate by giving some facts?

I hope this image loads (it's my very first attempt to use images here)



just some facts



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
As a straight, white, male I have noticed more rights given to Gays, women, and minorities than me. There is absolute reverse discrimination and special privileges given in the work place. I just want everyone equal!!! May the best person for the job get it. The extra attention given to different people is fueling the discrimination and keeping it all alive. My grandfather told me 20 years ago, the most discriminated person in the world is the straight, white man. While this may have been an exaggeration is it that far off? I guess I just think differently, more in a sports sense. If I was the captain of this business, how would I pick my team? To win, not to fill quotas of racial, sexual biases. No one cares in sports as long as you win. I'm sick of all this enabling. Let people all be seen as equals and only judged based on the reasons that are needed to be judged for success.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 



I know, it seems shocking but its true. Your sexuality does not define your rights as an American citizen.


Individually, you are correct. However, in a spousal type relationship, you are completely incorrect.

If you've ever had to deal with it, you'd know.

Here's my example (I'm straight by the way, and happily married for over 8 years)... However, my wife's mother was gay. She was with her partner for over 22 years. When in the hospital, her partner had almost zero rights. Lucky for her, my wife was on board with her, but without this kind of support, one could face not even being privy to their partner's medical condition! When in a coma, she wouldn't have even been able to make decisions for her!

After she passed, her partner of course no longer got any benefits, pension, etc. that she had, unlike a traditional spouse would.

It's just a bit ridiculous, and if you ever had to see this kind of thing happen, you'd realize how it's not just a name thing, for gays to be married. There are actual real issues at stake here.

Of course, the insurance companies, pension companies, etc. are all for banning gay marriage. They'd be paying millions more if it was legalized, so of course they will be the first ones to egg on the religious right whenever something like Obama's statements come out.


I just want everyone equal!!! May the best person for the job get it. The extra attention given to different people is fueling the discrimination and keeping it all alive.


On that, you're absolutely correct.


My grandfather told me 20 years ago, the most discriminated person in the world is the straight, white man. While this may have been an exaggeration is it that far off?


20 years ago, he was incorrect, but in about 10 years, I suspect he'll be right. Like you said, the ONLY way to really have equality is to do just that....be EQUAL, not have quotas. Base it on ability, skin color or other Title VII factors shouldn't even be an issue.
edit on 10-5-2012 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
As a straight, white, male I have noticed more rights given to Gays, women, and minorities than me. There is absolute reverse discrimination and special privileges given in the work place. I just want everyone equal!!! May the best person for the job get it. The extra attention given to different people is fueling the discrimination and keeping it all alive. My grandfather told me 20 years ago, the most discriminated person in the world is the straight, white man. While this may have been an exaggeration is it that far off? I guess I just think differently, more in a sports sense. If I was the captain of this business, how would I pick my team? To win, not to fill quotas of racial, sexual biases. No one cares in sports as long as you win. I'm sick of all this enabling. Let people all be seen as equals and only judged based on the reasons that are needed to be judged for success.

Give that man some applause! You know what? I'm sick of all the political correctness that inflicts us. I'm in the UK and remember a gay council colleague given 'maternity leave' after her ex partner (yes they were long ago split up) went and got herself pregnant through impregnation. It's not as if this baby was anything to do with my colleague so I asked Human Resources about it and they admitted that a straight person would not have had got leave - but they were afraid of being accused of being 'anti gay'.
Later when I worked for another council they used to hold frequent away days for black staff. The 'Black Workers Support Group' no less. In fact if anyone needed support it was the white staff who were a minority population in that area.
That same council held some job interviews where the Manager confided in me that he was ordered to reject the best (white) candidate in favour of an Asian gentleman who was a known troublemaker/slacker and who they had tried without success in a number of positions. Anyone else would have been out on their ear.
They later went on to bring in fast track promotion/progression through the pay grades for new Asian staff.
Equality? It is not all about marriage and it certainly isn't a level playing field.
edit on 10-5-2012 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
the simple solution is to give them exactly the same position under law as a straight married couple and let them enjoy divorce courts,lawyers and if they've adopted kids having to sort out maintenance and visitation rights along with one person getting screwed over by the other one for 90% of their wealth and probably 101 things involved in divorces that i've missed

should be a fun day in court when someone calls a judge homophobic when he doesn't give one side a better deal than the other



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
You can get a piece of paper that says you're married. You can have a ceremony that mimics a marriage, and you can go through all the motions to imitate a marriage, but gays will never actually be married. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman that is blessed by God. Since God says that homosexuality is an abominable sin, and that it is one last stage of human depravity (Read Romans in the Bible), God cannot bless any such things as being called a marriage.

So, go about and do as you please and God will have the last say on the matter. As for me, gays cannot "be" married, no matter if any power from this present world system says so. It just cannot be.

So call it something else because it's not a marriage.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I wonder how long my above statement will last before it gets taken down for being insensitive.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
I wonder how long my above statement will last before it gets taken down for being insensitive.

Or homophobic/whatever. You are entitled to your opinion. There are plenty of us who agree with you (even some of us non religious types).



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
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,[ ............]

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.



OK...then we should cease allowing heterosexuals incapable of having children from getting married?

No longer legally recognize a married couple unless "the union has been fruitful"?

No longer allow couples without children to file joint tax-returns.

No longer recognize inheritance or property rights between husband and wife unless they have children.

Invalidate all legal and institutional standing of married couples who have failed to produce economically beneficial offspring?

You logic fails in every way even before moral, religious and constitutional issues are considered.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 





posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


thanks for trowing in this personal account.
I can't go into details right now but I want to say that that account sounds very familiar.
Even over here, in "liberal" Europe (or the part where I happen to be) this kind of stuff is still the case,
even if we have gay marriages, over here.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


recognized by state sure but don't ask for church wedding.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Sexuality is a right?

Hey, if sexuality is a right ... does that mean a rapist also has rights to rape? after all, that is his sexuality.

To clarify, sexuality is not a right ... it's a reproductive organ, for the purpose of creating offspring. If you are claiming some "true" love of a spiritual nature, than please remove this soul from your body and present it here.

That said, if you want to claim equal rights ... please do, but the rights you are claiming is to have more rights than others, not equal rights. It's the same "rights" as women are proclaiming, it is not the right for equality ... but the right to be able to get in front of everybody else in the line. You want to claim "homosexuality", so that you can park in a handicap zone.


edit on 10/5/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
Sexuality is a right?

Hey, if sexuality is a right ... does that mean a rapist also has rights to rape? after all, that is his sexuality.

To clarify, sexuality is not a right ... it's a reproductive organ, for the purpose of creating offspring. If you are claiming some "true" love of a spiritual nature, than please remove this soul from your body and present it here.


Haha...go back to school, silly thing.

Rape is nonconsentual intercourse. Homosexual relations are not inherently unwilling. Perhaps we should rephrase and say "sexual orientation", since we have fools like this one trying to play the semantics game in an attempt to sound clever.

You have not a darn idea what you're talking about.
edit on CThursdayam414142f42America/Chicago10 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by votan
 


Considering that church worships a god who is jealous and vindictive, and proud of it? A god who "loves" us, but commits genocide to make a point? A god who sacrifices everything dear to a mortal man just to prove that he'll still remain faithful, then thinks a crapload of gold can replace his dead daughter and wife?

Yep, totally gonna ask that church to make my marriage "official". Nope, not happening. They want to make it official in the eyes of their god, I'll display my middle finger in the most blatant fashion possible and consumate the marriage the night before it happens.

You know, just to make a point.



edit on CThursdayam393945f45America/Chicago10 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Rape is nonconsentual intercourse.



You ought to go back to school yourself ... rape is "rarely", the way you claim it is. Most "rape" is when people are momentarily discources, and feel bad about the activity afterwards. Of all the rape cases, the "violent" ones you use for your rhetoric are the exception, not the rule. The same arguement can be used about these "rape" victims, as was used about "going out of the closet" arguement, back in 70's. In most cases, it's a latent bad conscience.

That said, nobody cares where you put your organ ... sequally isn't a right, it's a need just like going to the bathroom ... claiming some higher soul type relationship, is an old, used up and washed up rhetoric. Mostly used by half-wits.

This "claim", especially today, is old, tiresome rhetoric ... from people who have no talent, no background, nothing to offer and try to get a "headon" in life, by claiming some extra ordinary "right". It's like hearing all those women claiming "sexual" abuse on Oprah, most of them are there to get attention ... and they are getting attention by peeing on their parents, brothers ... lying, for attention, so they can park in the handicap zone.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
it is a sad world, with a terrible low level of development, if people reserve the right to discipline other people's sexuality (and don't gimme that crap about rape and other forms of abuse, you know what I am referring to: the plooking among adults), especially is this tendency is based on a book!

if a guy feels happy riding another guy and they both consent, who are the others to say if this is possible?
Why shouldn't two women who love each other be enabled to consolidate that by having a legal agreement?

I don't grasp the notion of marriage all together? Why would anyone allow the state or any other institution to interfere in a personal relationship?
I do however understand why doing so might be beneficial. But that's only so because states tend to sanction those who don't go for the marriage-thing (see the examples above... "you're not married? then we don't tell you if your loved one who is in our hands of care if dying or doing better")



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by Starchild23

Rape is nonconsentual intercourse.



You ought to go back to school yourself ... rape is "rarely", the way you claim it is. Most "rape" is when people are momentarily discources, and feel bad about the activity afterwards. Of all the rape cases, the "violent" ones you use for your rhetoric are the exception, not the rule. The same arguement can be used about these "rape" victims, as was used about "going out of the closet" arguement, back in 70's. In most cases, it's a latent bad conscience.

That said, nobody cares where you put your organ ... sequally isn't a right, it's a need just like going to the bathroom ... claiming some higher soul type relationship, is an old, used up and washed up rhetoric. Mostly used by half-wits.

This "claim", especially today, is old, tiresome rhetoric ... from people who have no talent, no background, nothing to offer and try to get a "headon" in life, by claiming some extra ordinary "right". It's like hearing all those women claiming "sexual" abuse on Oprah, most of them are there to get attention ... and they are getting attention by peeing on their parents, brothers ... lying, for attention, so they can park in the handicap zone.


Camille Paglia, argues that a close reading of historical texts find that men do not hate women but fear them. Men, feeling powerless against women's sexual allure, are often justifiably wary of women -- pregnancy and child-rearing can consume the majority of a man's energy and lifespan.

Marilyn Frye claims that misogyny is phallogocentric and homoerotic ( the erotic attraction between members of the same sex) at its root.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join