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.

 

Chick-fil-A "non-story" exposes the Hypocritical agenda of LGBT Community.

page: 21
51
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


yes, this is where its a problem--PERS, the like. this is a problem most americans that pay tax would never want to vote in.

but you live in a fantacy world, have it how you like!




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


and since religion and government are separate then why shouldn't churches be able to refuse to marry homosexuals?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by Annee
 


yes, this is where its a problem--PERS, the like. this is a problem most americans that pay tax would never want to vote in.

but you live in a fantacy world, have it how you like!


Have no idea what you're talking about.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by natters
reply to post by Annee
 


and since religion and government are separate then why shouldn't churches be able to refuse to marry homosexuals?


They can.

How many times must that be posted?

EDIT: this is about same sex marriage in America - - - not Canada.


edit on 7-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
Now, here's my opinion. Since marriage is primarily a religious ordinance, why don't we let the churches decide who to marry? If a couple of people wish to form a legally binding contract that carries the same legal weight as a marriage does today, go for it! I don't care what their relationship to one another is. What say you?


Actually marriage is primarily a legal ordinance. It has been so since before religion was invented, and MANY religions picked it up before Christianity. So what you're saying is that we should convert all marriages to "legal contacts" and then let the churches decide who should be married?

I kinda like that idea! I think that would work for everyone! A fantastic bit of brainstorming! +1 for you!


The more I think about this, the more I like it. Everyone can get re-married after having their marriages converted to legal binding (or whatever the term would be). It'd be a shot in the arm for the economy as well!



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
Now, here's my opinion. Since marriage is primarily a religious ordinance, why don't we let the churches decide who to marry? If a couple of people wish to form a legally binding contract that carries the same legal weight as a marriage does today, go for it! I don't care what their relationship to one another is. What say you?


Actually marriage is primarily a legal ordinance. It has been so since before religion was invented, and MANY religions picked it up before Christianity. So what you're saying is that we should convert all marriages to "legal contacts" and then let the churches decide who should be married?

I kinda like that idea! I think that would work for everyone! A fantastic bit of brainstorming! +1 for you!


LOOK. Govt IS the religion----you need the Govt to do this, and make this rule, ect. And you arent a real boy if you dont have a piece of paper prooving your LOVE and how FAIR GOVT GOD has made your life. and yes, marriage licenses are a legal contract. you must live in some alternate reality.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag

The more I think about this, the more I like it. Everyone can get re-married after having their marriages converted to legal binding (or whatever the term would be). It'd be a shot in the arm for the economy as well!


No Marriage for anyone.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by rainbowbear

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
Now, here's my opinion. Since marriage is primarily a religious ordinance, why don't we let the churches decide who to marry? If a couple of people wish to form a legally binding contract that carries the same legal weight as a marriage does today, go for it! I don't care what their relationship to one another is. What say you?


Actually marriage is primarily a legal ordinance. It has been so since before religion was invented, and MANY religions picked it up before Christianity. So what you're saying is that we should convert all marriages to "legal contacts" and then let the churches decide who should be married?

I kinda like that idea! I think that would work for everyone! A fantastic bit of brainstorming! +1 for you!


LOOK. Govt IS the religion----you need the Govt to do this, and make this rule, ect. And you arent a real boy if you dont have a piece of paper prooving your LOVE and how FAIR GOVT GOD has made your life. and yes, marriage licenses are a legal contract. you must live in some alternate reality.


Hmm... For someone named Rainbow Bear, you're kinda gloomy...

Anyway, StalkerSolent's idea is right on the money. Convert all marriage licenses to marital contract (or whatever0 and then let churches decide the whole marriage thing... That way NO ONE can hold something above someone else saying, "You can't be legally married because you're gay!" (or straight even!)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by grahag

The more I think about this, the more I like it. Everyone can get re-married after having their marriages converted to legal binding (or whatever the term would be). It'd be a shot in the arm for the economy as well!


No Marriage for anyone.



Annee,

Don't be silly. Churches will decide who gets married now. Since EVERYONE has a marital contract, it's a moot issue. Just find a church that will marry you, and BAM! you're married!



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
yeah--the Gays got a long think coming if they think using the Fed Gov in any way will be successful. OR rallying people on the fence about it--as you can ask for the facts all day long but all you get is --IDEOLOGY-

and not just any ideology, but --ideologies that have been given to us by tv, movies, politics. I mean--hardly a unique comment all day--

Good luck gay folks, I admire your spirit and hope you may find equality someday, if not in your mind---in your heart.

But mostly i wish you WISDOM as that seems to be the most lacking.

K I love you, BBye!



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by grahag

The more I think about this, the more I like it. Everyone can get re-married after having their marriages converted to legal binding (or whatever the term would be). It'd be a shot in the arm for the economy as well!


No Marriage for anyone.



Annee,

Don't be silly. Churches will decide who gets married now. Since EVERYONE has a marital contract, it's a moot issue. Just find a church that will marry you, and BAM! you're married!


I'm Atheist.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by grahag

The more I think about this, the more I like it. Everyone can get re-married after having their marriages converted to legal binding (or whatever the term would be). It'd be a shot in the arm for the economy as well!


No Marriage for anyone.



Annee,

Don't be silly. Churches will decide who gets married now. Since EVERYONE has a marital contract, it's a moot issue. Just find a church that will marry you, and BAM! you're married!


I'm Atheist.


Me too, but that won't stop me from hitting up a church to get married in. Something with nice landscaping and beautiful colors... I had a justice of the peace do my marriage originally, but when I get RE-married after the change, then I'll do it up right. I wonder if there are any churches right on the beach?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 


I think I just came up with a fantastic idea... I'm going to start my own church and specialize in gay marriage... Buy some property right on the beach and charge an arm and a leg, but it'll be beautiful..I'll charge double for heterosexuals though.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by Annee

I'm Atheist.


Me too, but that won't stop me from hitting up a church to get married in. Something with nice landscaping and beautiful colors... I had a justice of the peace do my marriage originally, but when I get RE-married after the change, then I'll do it up right. I wonder if there are any churches right on the beach?


Naw - - - can't do it.

Besides this issue - - - separation of church and state is of Equal importance.

I really can't see forcing all LGBT into churches to get married - - - after the way most of them treated them.

And I know you know what I mean.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
This Chick-a-fill thing i have been reading about is something that drive me insane.

I am totally against the LGBT organised terrorist cult they have become.

They are exactly like all other organizations that seek dominating power.

Exile them while we can.

I attended the parade in Vancouver to view its spectacle and they hold no bound for any laws. They expect things
to be changed for them and if no they shout HOMOPHOBIA as loud as they can screech.

I liken the movement akin to any other organisation just like a white supremacist group or a muslim fanatical group. All the same and they need to be labelled along side these other groups by all agencies like
DHS as terrorist groups.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew
It doesn't, but the label "LGBT" is used to confer an agenda based movement that assumes to speak for a segment of society. Just like "Republicans" or "Democrats" are people, but there is a larger "party" that assumes to speak for them.


If the LGBT community had equal rights, and were accepted %100 by all of society, there would be no such thing as an "LGBT community". There would be no need. The LGBT community has been assaulted, subjugated, killed...you name it... because of who they are. They did not label themselves, the haters did. They've just turned it around and made it into a positive reflection of their community.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six6Six

I am totally against the LGBT organised terrorist cult they have become.


OMG

Minority Bullies.

What is this world coming to?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle

In short: people need to stop whining. The majority should be spoken for, while the concerns of the few squelched.



Majority rule - huh? That's your stand.

Well - - sucks for you America is a Democratic Republic not a Democracy.


Actually Annee... I never thought I'd say it - but damn if I don't agree with you. Majority rule is not something I subscribe to. While I agree that sacrificing the rights and liberties of the many for the luxuries and comfort of the few is garbage political pandering - I don't agree that the minorities simply of to suck it up because they're the minority.

That's essentially the premise that this nation was founded on. We are not a Democracy (mob rule), we are a Representative Republic that gives everyone a voice. My problem is that too often the current popular cultural fad seems to forget that EVERYONE gets a voice, not just them.


LGBTQ - - are just people. They are not a group think. They are not a fad. They get up - go to work. Some are professionals - athletes - ministers - actors - etc.

They want Legal Equal Rights - - Period! That's it.

How does it affect your life if they have Equal Rights? It doesn't.



It doesn't, but the label "LGBT" is used to confer an agenda based movement that assumes to speak for a segment of society. Just like "Republicans" or "Democrats" are people, but there is a larger "party" that assumes to speak for them.

I have no problem with equal rights, but other than being able to get married... what exactly is it that the LGBT (I have no clue wtf the Q is for now) does not have the "right" to do that every other American has?

They can adopt, they can get married in some places (not all yet, but it wont be too long now), and *gasp* they can even drive cars!!!

Seriously - this issue came over a guy asked about his religious views on a subject. Nobody asked him to make laws, he's not an elected official.

Here's what I think - I think the LGBT community has this enormous chip on their shoulder and they see intolerance and injustice around every corner - so much that they feel they need to jam their agenda down people's throats.

Have you not noticed the enormous uptick in "Gays" on TV lately? It reminds me of the early 80's when there were suddenly a bunch of "Black" TV shows on prime time. It's the old song and dance of preying on strait white people's fear of being labeled "racists" or "intolerant" so they'll literally RUN to embrace anything gay just to show they're not bigots.

Other than the minor stuff that comes along with being married, Gays are not discriminated against. Hell, it's not even a frog's breath close to what the Blacks went through during the days of segregation and the civil rights era - yet the LGBT community is trying to portray every minor issue as some epic battle for equality.

Squeaky wheel syndrome?


Gays HAVE been persecuted and oppressed. They have been imprisoned and killed for who they are. Even recently.

NO, they do NOT have the same rights as everyone. It is not automatic that they will have inheritance rights, rights to make decisions for their partners health and property . Those rights are bestowed primarily by marriage.

Gays have been stigmatized throughout history.

Yes, they are finally coming "out" more and I am happy for them.

As with every minority movement , things get wild for a while and then calm down. Chill out and allow your fellow citizen to enjoy the same civil rights you take for granted!



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by Annee

I'm Atheist.


Me too, but that won't stop me from hitting up a church to get married in. Something with nice landscaping and beautiful colors... I had a justice of the peace do my marriage originally, but when I get RE-married after the change, then I'll do it up right. I wonder if there are any churches right on the beach?


Naw - - - can't do it.

Besides this issue - - - separation of church and state is of Equal importance.

I really can't see forcing all LGBT into churches to get married - - - after the way most of them treated them.

And I know you know what I mean.


I really think you have limited life experience and believe all the crap you read on the internet. You make some of the most judgmental and stereotypical statements of people NOT like you that I've ever seen.

Oh wait.. ROFL - that's the whole point of this post to begin with...

What if I said things like "I can't see forcing all the strait people to work with LGBT --- after the way most of them treated them"...

Then I'd be a hate group right?

#smh

"Deny Ignorance" indeed.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew
threatened boycotts of Kraft Foods and more specifically the Oreo brand.

Now we all knew that this would never happend because those toothless mobs need to feed on deep-fried Oreos at the local county fairs and NASCAR races

I think you'll find it's homophobes, as distinct from homosexuals, that will more likely frequent base bucolic activities like car races and hee-haw bush gatherings.

Just sayin'...



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join