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: 22
51
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by Annee

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?


Right, because if you're a minority, you have the right to be violent, overbearing, close minded, judgmental, and/or a general jackass....

You have the worst world view I think I've read from someone in a long time. You're no better than the people you claim to war against, you just support different causes.




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trivium68
...
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!


Really? Gays have been oppressed and persecuted? More than Italians? Irish? Germans? Blacks? Asians?

Please explain how horrible it's been for them in America, because I think you're speaking from unsubstantiated emotional appeal than actual facts.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew

You have the worst world view I think I've read from someone in a long time. You're no better than the people you claim to war against, you just support different causes.


Don't ya all just love when someone resorts to this type response?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by toochaos4u

Do you think that all gay people are hairy men in pink tutu's or that this is even his everyday attire?

Nope, not for a minute. But I am not the one you need to concern yourself with.

The ones you need to concern yourself with are those who do think that... and I promise you, there are plenty who do! The common perception I hear most often is that homosexuals are perverted in a myriad of ways, including pedophilia, that males are weak and helpless while lesbians are ugly and rough, that they dress in inappropriate attire, that they want to sleep with everyone they see, that they all have AIDS, and that they want to burn churches.

That's not what I think. That's what a lot of others think. You can blaspheme me all day long and it will not change that except to make a reader add intolerant and self-absorbed to the list.


We had a small pride parade locally and 98% of the people wore just jeans and a t-shirt but, the news media focused on the trans-sexual wearing a purple ball gown because people just waking by in t-shirts do not make parades interesting. Who am I to tell the Tutu man to do anything or the purple gown wearing trans-sexual?

That would depend on how badly you wanted to make a positive impression. By allowing this in your parade, you implicitly agreed to the message being sent.


You say yourself you are a redneck but, do the neighbours that lived across the street from me at one point that proudly proclaimed to be rednecks represent you?

Actually, yes they do to a point. The location of that point depends on whether or not I am satisfied to say nothing about it. In my case, I will say something about it! Those people may self-profess to be redneck, but they are, according to your description, simply white trash. I will state openly that they do not represent me, and I will call out anyone who claims they do!

In the parade, you should have done the same... wrote letters to the editor expressing your disgust at the actions of the transsexual, tried to force the media into a retraction, gone to competing media to get attention focused on the misrepresentation, etc. But you did none of this, and here stated it was not your place to say their actions did not represent you. Therefore you implicitly agreed with the actions and this is now engraved in the memory of everyone who saw the spectacle.


Why haven't you been down here to tell them they are misrepresenting you as a redneck?

Probably because I was unaware of that specific situation. I have stopped behavior like that in the past. You were aware of the transsexual and did nothing.


To keep this on topic though I really don't care what some fast food restaurant does/says. This is not the fight to go after for the community.

Now that is a position I can support.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Trivium68
...
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!


Really? Gays have been oppressed and persecuted? More than Italians? Irish? Germans? Blacks? Asians?

Please explain how horrible it's been for them in America, because I think you're speaking from unsubstantiated emotional appeal than actual facts.


Hmm, have Italians been kicked out of the military for being Italian? noooo but Gays have. Can a black be fired from his job for being black? not without ramifications but not so with Gays. Do the followers of any religions preach that being Asian is an affront to God? no, not that I am aware.

Can you even begin to imagine what is like for someone to hate you, I mean -really-hate-you, even to the point of wishing you were dead, just because you are Gay. Do you know what it is like to have someone spit in your face and say "Get AIDS and DIE FAG" for no reason other then they might think you are Gay? Do you know what it is like growing up in society that often thinks so ill of you and who you are that you would rather live a lie then stand in the light of truth? I just read an aweful letter from a Father who disowned his son for coming out.

I'm here to tell you, as far as America has come on this subject, it has a long way to go.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by AM47240

Your attempt to make it seem like gays should just "act normal" falls flat.

Only if one has no need to persuade others of a position is that true. The apparent goal here is a Constitutional Amendment establishing a marital right regardless of gender and to declare special protection for one particular class of people.

That Constitutional Amendment requires either two thirds of the states (34) to propose it, or two thirds of both the Senate and the House. It then requires ratification of three fourths of the states (38). If you want a law establishing sexual preference as a specific protected status, you get to do things a bit easier: all you need is a majority in both Senate and House and a signature by the President. But that is also fleeting as it opposes the Tenth Amendment. So you also need the consent of the Supreme Court to uphold it.

In short, you need that goodwill.

If all you want is equal protection under the law, fine, do as you wish. But understand that does not include Federal marital "rights" nor protected minority status.


I'm sure those people don't give a rats-patootie whether or not you approve of the way they act, dress, or behave in public. They are being themselves, and not putting on an act as a means to gain your approval.

Yep, they can do as they please. My opinion and fifty cents might still get a cup of coffee. But when it comes time to vote on an issue, they simply will not have my support.

I'm starting to think you do not understand the battle you are in. Minorities do not make law; they have protections, yes, but those protections do not extend to marriage. That requires political action, and political action requires public approval.

So far as I'm concerned, I don't care if someone wants to have 49 other people naked inside a Volkwagon Beetle while wearing gas masks and playing tic-tac-toe with mascara on various body parts. I would really prefer to not see it, but what you do out of my sight is none of my business. It only becomes my business when someone decides to legislate about it. At that point it is my business as I am a citizen with a voice.


By insinuating that because you hold on to a stereotype of all gay people based on the most sensationalist examples that you need gays to be nice to you and convince you that they are worthy of your vote?

Nope... again, I am not talking about me. If you can't see that from my several posts in this thread, you're gonna have a hard time reading anything important.


The classic "Us vs. Them" argument that always inspires bigotry.

Nope... there's that comprehension problem again.

I am not for or against you. I don't care. Burn the planet to the ground in a hate-filled rage if you want. It's not my fight. It's not "us" versus anyone. It's me not playing your silly game any more.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Honestly - - I don't understand majority vote of a minorities rights.

How is that ever OK?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

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?


Since we live in a secular government - - and Prop8 rulings say religion can not be used as an argument.

Let's not.


Erm--did you read the rest of my post? I was proposing we take the government out of religion and marriage.
Also, in another post, you asked me to explain how gays currently had equal rights. I think I've explained my position a bunch in the other posts on this thread, and I hate sounding like a broken record
If you did read through them and are still confused, though, I'll try to explain again.
While we're at it, do you mind telling me what right heterosexual individuals have that homosexual individuals do not? It might go a long way towards answering your question. Thanks!

Edit to add: I'm not proposing that people be forced into a church to marry. They can get married however they want; I'm just proposing that we take the government out of it. I.e. no more government officials performing marriages.
edit on 7-8-2012 by StalkerSolent because: Clarification!



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 


Thanks grahag! Glad you like my idea! What I'm saying is basically, I'm cool with two (or three, or five) people forming a contract. If that contract reflects their martial status (marriage as officiated by a church, or mosque, or a couple of droids, or however they chose to solemnize their relationship) great! But I don't care if identical twins who like each others company and want to share a bank account use a similar one. Basically it's a legal contract. Shoot, each couple can tailor it as they see fit!

And be sure to let me know if you go into the marriage business



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Erm--did you read the rest of my post? I was proposing we take the government out of religion and marriage.


I do not care to go down this road. What we have today - - is what needs to be Equal.

NOW - RIGHT NOW - - as marriage stands RIGHT NOW - - needs to be the same for all. That is EQUAL.


While we're at it, do you mind telling me what right heterosexual individuals have that homosexual individuals do not? It might go a long way towards answering your question. Thanks!


Federal protective marriage and all privileges that go along with it - - - not afforded by any other means.

Employment protection.

Insurance protection.

Both parents on birth certificate.

There are quite a few.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by natters


They don't deserve special treatment - just equal treatment. Most U.S. states will not issue a marriage license to a gay couple, so it is NOT true that all gays can get married. Two atheists can get a marriage license in any state in the U.S., but two gays can't.

There are some states that prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation, but not all. A Muslim is legally protected from discrimination in the workplace in every state in the U.S., but a gay isn't.


You realize they can get married in another state. When canada legalized gay marriage they were getting married here......


Again, two atheists can get a marriage license in ANY state in the U.S., but two gays can't. That's NOT equal treatment.


They also have a problem with getting a divorce too.

Seems as though when they go to a different state to get married, the state that they live in may not be able to give them a divorce due to the fact that the state does not recognize same sex marriage.

It's really a messed up situation. Definitely some thing needs to be done to remedy this.



A court’s conundrum: When same-sex partners want to split


www.washingtonpost.com...

If 2 people want to be together, so be it. It doesn't matter if they're black, white, pink, purple, straight, gay, Republican, Democrat, Atheist, Muslim, Christian, Catholic,etc.,etc., let them be free to do as they please.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Erm--did you read the rest of my post? I was proposing we take the government out of religion and marriage.


I do not care to go down this road. What we have today - - is what needs to be Equal.

NOW - RIGHT NOW - - as marriage stands RIGHT NOW - - needs to be the same for all. That is EQUAL.


While we're at it, do you mind telling me what right heterosexual individuals have that homosexual individuals do not? It might go a long way towards answering your question. Thanks!


Federal protective marriage and all privileges that go along with it - - - not afforded by any other means.

Employment protection.

Insurance protection.

Both parents on birth certificate.

There are quite a few.



Ah, thanks. This helps me understand your position a little better. However, I wish we would go down that road. Seems to me it fixes most of the current problem, and gets government's big nose out of where it does not belong. Remember-if the government can give, it can surely take away.

Speaking of which, it seems the stuff you are concerned with has mostly to do with money, and less with what I consider inalienable rights. In my humble opinion, you have no right to insurance, employment protection, etc. (As far as the birth certificate, I am fine having the names of the biological parents on the birth certificate.) However, that difference in worldview (rights, privileges, entitlements etc.) is much broader and deeper than the debate on homosexual marriage. Perhaps we can discuss it another time
For now, I'd be happy if you would elaborate on your opposition to my proposed solution (I mean, I came up with it, it can't be perfect, right? :duh
I know you think that the current system of marriage should simply be reformed, but why? Why not just politely remove an already intrusive government from yet another sphere that it simply does not need to be in? Let people be married in whatever fashion they choose, and let binding, legal contracts take care of the the things you mentioned, such as employment and insurance protection.

(BTW, if anyone else has thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by rainbowbear
 


Rainbowbear,

Just to be sure we're clear, I'm aware that marriages are currently (at least, if you pay your dues and get a license) a legal contract. I'm suggesting we decouple the legal aspects of the ritual from the spiritual ones. I thrash that idea out a bit in some other posts.
Thanks!
-SS



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

However, I wish we would go down that road. Seems to me it fixes most of the current problem, and gets government's big nose out of where it does not belong. Remember-if the government can give, it can surely take away.


For all - - that want to change from a government licensed marriage.

EQUAL FIRST.

Once everyone has FULL Equality - - - - then Change Away. But not until.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Speaking of which, it seems the stuff you are concerned with has mostly to do with money, and less with what I consider inalienable rights.


It doesn't matter.

Fact is hetero's have this privilege which is denied a minority group.

Equality for all first - - - then change away.

There is no room in this society for one group to say "Neener Neener - - I have real marriage and you don't"



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


Agree here. However, I am frankly tired of the media amplifying the 2.5% of the gay population to seem like everyone you know is really gay but you don't know it yet. The agenda is not so much that "gays need to be represented" but "morality needs to be destroyed". THAT is the goal. THAT is why the huge uproar every time there is an opportunity to further the liberal agenda.



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



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Speaking of which, it seems the stuff you are concerned with has mostly to do with money, and less with what I consider inalienable rights.


It doesn't matter.

Fact is hetero's have this privilege which is denied a minority group.

Equality for all first - - - then change away.

There is no room in this society for one group to say "Neener Neener - - I have real marriage and you don't"


FYI, marriage is defined in the BIBLE. Long BEFORE any modern legal system. Before the Magna Carta. Before the US Constitution. You want "equality"? Look at the Biblical definition and tell me what it says.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

FYI, marriage is defined in the BIBLE. Long BEFORE any modern legal system. Before the Magna Carta. Before the US Constitution. You want "equality"? Look at the Biblical definition and tell me what it says.


Ya know what - - - I don't give an "F" about bible crap anymore - - I'm sick of it being an excuse to hate and deny a minority group a normal life.

However - - - marriage existed long before the bible.

EDIT: Here is a Real History of Marriage. READ IT

onespiritproject.com...


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



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by rainbowbear
 


Aawww, and your name is rainbowbear.

How ironic



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
reply to post by gncnew
 


Agree here. However, I am frankly tired of the media amplifying the 2.5% of the gay population to seem like everyone you know is really gay but you don't know it yet. The agenda is not so much that "gays need to be represented" but "morality needs to be destroyed". THAT is the goal. THAT is why the huge uproar every time there is an opportunity to further the liberal agenda.



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


Hmmmm...define "morality." Whose "morality" needs to be destroyed? Is this an objective morality?




top topics



 
51
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join