The Homosexual Agenda

Durden,
you seem to be genuine in your desire to understand other, non religious reasons that people oppose gay marriage. I applaud your willingness to CONSIDER other options even tho you still may not agree in the end.

Durden says,

It seems to me that your main argument concerns the opinion of the majority. And while I agree with that argument up to a point; personally I don't think this alone can be used to justify labeling gay marriages as immoral or wrong. Nor does it mean that issues like this one shouldn't still be fought for. It merely shows the current opinion of the majority.

Yes much of the main argument is a pro democracy, majority concensus, cultural right to identity issue.

At what point do you agree with our position and where and why do you break away and disagree?

Who here, (aside from those only using religious condemnation as their defense) is saying gay marriage is immoral?
Why is saying, those holding this view are wrong, such a big deal?
Yes any idea can still be fought for to reach a majority concensus and thus be able to institutionalize this into the fabric of a culture.

Durden asks,

Yet again you use the opinion majority as the real reason for not allowing gay marriages. Would you argue using the same logic for gay marriage in case the majority were to accept it?

YES.....at least this way, a special interest minority group wouldnt be able to push its agenda upon the cultural majority. Even if i disagreed with the new law, IF the majority got to decide the issue, then i would say the majority had spoken...this does not mean id accept this or that i couldnt continue efforts to build a concensus to reverse this.

Were is the creator of this thread now? where are all the bible thumpers standing next to me and KJ backing us?
They arent here because their views are NO LESS subject to the same thing Im advocating....democracy could indeed decide that their god is not the reason to say no to gay marriage...in essence, my view could harm them, thats why their not here now. Saying no to the gay agenda means the culture could say no to the christian agenda just as easily...im sure they dont like that either. But hey isnt this equality expressed thru democratic means?

Jakko says,

The polls of the election clearly showed that the mayority of the americans is against gay marriage. To me this indicates that mayority of the americans is wrong and ignorant when it comes to this issue.

You are certantly within your rights to say that the majority has the wrong take on this issue,
BUT
when you then slip into reverse biggotry and projection of bias by calling them ignorant, youve crossed over into deviciveness and name calling.
How do you think people supporting the gay agenda can/will be able to build a majority concensus by using this devicive tactic? I will not give my support to a SIMG that has no respect for others to start with.
Aviod the trap of emotionalism.

The lesser speaks,

Let them marry, doesn't hurt me in the least

AGAIN AND AGAIN JAMES YOU FLEE before you acknowledge that the issue of"who does this harm" has not been fully explored, ive pointed out time and again to YOU that harm IS being done by both sides, that even tho YOU say your not effected, ive listed examples of where "harm" would take place.
me from last page,

Certantly with 11000 things that gay marriage would affect, (accoirding to this thread....www.abovetopsecret.com... and NO examinations/discussions about these interactions...there is NO WAY anyone can say that harm is not/would not be caused.

Care to explain James how you can say reasonably, with some logic that there is noplace where "harm" could be mainfest with no examination of 11,000 things that marriage affects from a legal stance?
I think that as usual, there will be no attempt to answer this one as by doing so youd essentially have to LIE and say there is no effects to anyone, anywhere on this issue, OR youd have to admit your position of "harm" is a false analogy. This is like the 5th time Ive spefically asked you to respond to this idea, and avoidance (dissapearing) is no answer.

Originally posted by CazMedia
Yes much of the main argument is a pro democracy, majority concensus, cultural right to identity issue.

At what point do you agree with our position and where and why do you break away and disagree?

Who here, (aside from those only using religious condemnation as their defense) is saying gay marriage is immoral?

A governmental support of not accepting gay marriages does work as a justification by those condemning the homosexual community to label said action as immoral. This I strongly oppose.

Yes any idea can still be fought for to reach a majority concensus and thus be able to institutionalize this into the fabric of a culture.

Agreed. I would add that society has an obligation to consider the possible negative ethical implications of accepting a ban such as this. Granted in a democracy, the democratic ruling does normally have the final say. However, if we were to draw this to the extreme; should we accept a situation where a majority of people wanted to keep slavery as a practice? Regrettably, the opinion of the majority doesn't automatically equal that which is morally and ethically just; which IMO is something a civilized society should constantly strive for. Indeed, this is clearly a moral dilemma.

IMO this very discussion is really a rehash of what's been creating heated arguments among people throughout the history of society. It used to be about women's right to vote, banning slavery etc etc etc.

YES.....at least this way, a special interest minority group wouldnt be able to push its agenda upon the cultural majority.

I would argue that in the end, even though this may look like a minority issue; it's actually the interest of the society as a whole that all people be treated equal.

Even if i disagreed with the new law, IF the majority got to decide the issue, then i would say the majority had spoken...this does not mean id accept this or that i couldnt continue efforts to build a concensus to reverse this.

Agreed.


[edit on 4-11-2004 by Durden]

Durden,
Your not such an oddball after all....we seem to be in general agreement.

I dont understand your answer tho...

A governmental support of banning gay marriages does work as a justification by those condemning the homosexual community to label said action as immoral. This I strongly oppose.

You oppese government banning or the labeling as immoral?
can you please restate your answer.

Durdes says,

Regrettably, the opinion of the majority doesn't automatically equal that which is morally and ethically just; which IMO is something a civilized society should constantly strive for. Indeed, this is clearly a moral dilemma.

I agree. But in trying to answer should this culture adopt gay marriage...the answer is also a question (who's moral's are we using here)...how can a culture act upon this if no real definative answer can be reached? This is one of the biggest reasons i have tried to strip down this debate to where it is now...on a sociological standpoint. Using the agreed upon method here, (democracy) to determine this, without delving into the tons of different reasons some morality is ok and some is not. Ultimatly id say its the overall cultural identity that defines what the morals of this issue are.

My other question for you is, how can marriage be a right for anyone?
Why isnt marriage considered a special interest minority group entitlement?
Why is marriage a right?

Define this right and then apply it to the society.
How can the government defend this right? will they gaurntee you a spouse? What violates this right?

Doesnt this make non married or divorced people "lesser citizens" as they do not have the same protections/rights/entitlements that marrieds do?

The right to not be a slave is far different and more severe that an agreement betwen 2 people to express some legal union. one is a right, one is an SIMG entitlement.

Originally posted by CazMedia
Your not such an oddball after all....we seem to be in general agreement.

Why, thank you. You seem to be a fairly reasonable individual as well.

You oppese government banning or the labeling as immoral?
can you please restate your answer.

What I was trying to convey was that these issues regrettably are tied together. The fact that the government opposes gay marriage does also work as a justification to condemn this act as immoral (by those who use this line of reasoning). Though what I oppose the most is the actual labeling as it fuels and justifies hatred towards the gay community.

I agree. But in trying to answer should this culture adopt gay marriage...the answer is also a question (who's moral's are we using here)...how can a culture act upon this if no real definative answer can be reached?

Well this is the thing. A general opinion of a ban in itself really isn't a moral argument - it's merely a reflection of the current opinion of the majority; uninformed or not. This is why this issue has to be dicussed in terms of what should or shouldn't be adopted in society and whether it follows what society normally consideres ethical. If a ban on gay marriage can't be justified using actual moral reasoning, applied on other issues concerning equal treatment in society, then there really isn't a valid argument to support this ban.

My other question for you is, how can marriage be a right for anyone?
Why isnt marriage considered a special interest minority group entitlement?
Why is marriage a right?

Well as it stands, anybody - even atheists - are allowed to marry. So it really isn't a special interest minority group entitlement. Quite the contrary; it's a special interest group rejection. In my view, the question is how do we morally justify not allowing a certain group of consenting adults to marry - when it's obviously merely based on sexual preference? Isn't this by definition, biased?

How can the government defend this right? will they gaurntee you a spouse? What violates this right?

Doesnt this make non married or divorced people "lesser citizens" as they do not have the same protections/rights/entitlements that marrieds do?

This analogy is a little bit odd. It's like saying that while you allow a person within the legal age and having a driver's license the right, or rather the liberty, to be able to buy a car and drive it - you look upon those without cars as "lesser people". That just doesn't make any sense. The government doesn't actually guarantee you a car just because you have a license, does it?

The right to not be a slave is far different and more severe that an agreement betwen 2 people to express some legal union. one is a right, one is an SIMG entitlement.

Yes, the slave issue is more severe. But it still is an issue of equality.


[edit on 4-11-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by CazMedia
You are certantly within your rights to say that the majority has the wrong take on this issue,
BUT
when you then slip into reverse biggotry and projection of bias by calling them ignorant, youve crossed over into deviciveness and name calling.

Why?
They are not only wrong, they are also ignorant when it comes to what being gay means. They probably can not help it that they are ignorant, but that doesn't change the fact that they are.
If I would say "I do not agree, but I respect your opinion" I would be lying.
If someone says 1+1=3 you don't say you respect their opinion either.
They are wrong, and because I am very sure of this I can say that most americans are ignorant when it comes to this issue. This does not mean (fortunately) that they are ignorant in everything they do, this just means americans have a lot to learn regarding this subject.

How do you think people supporting the gay agenda can/will be able to build a majority concensus by using this devicive tactic? I will not give my support to a SIMG that has no respect for others to start with.
Aviod the trap of emotionalism.

Oh this has truly nothing to do with emotionalism. I have several gay relatives and I can assure you that a lot of people in america do not know what being gay means.
I am quite happy I am living in the netherlands, because I think the USA (and most countries actually) are behind quite a couple of years, when it comes to the discussion regarding moral issues.

Now that the election is over, homosexuals are regrouping for the continued fight for the right to marry:

Gays Gird for Second Bush Term
Saturday, November 06, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO � Gay and lesbian advocates have been doing some soul-searching since President Bush's election victory, wondering if same-sex wedding marches through San Francisco and Massachusetts tipped the scales to Republicans promising to restore traditional values.

Exit polling showed "moral values" were at the top of voters' concerns, especially in the 11 states where voters banned same-sex marriage � ballot amendments inspired by the parade of weddings.

"I think it hurt," said Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay Democrat from Massachusetts, the state that set off the firestorm last November when its high court ruled that gay couples have the right to wed.

Frank is among many political observers who credit the anti-gay marriage amendments with giving the president's conservative base a reason to go to the polls in crucial battleground states like Ohio.

www.foxnews.com...

Christian conservatives were motivated by the "gay marriage" issue:

Gay Marriages Issue Motivates Christian Voters

Sunday, September 26, 2004� Christian conservatives (search) are casting a wider net this year in their search for likely voters � especially conservative ones � by asking people on the phone how they feel about same-sex marriage as well as their views on abortion, a standard question in previous election cycles.

"The federal marriage amendment (search) will be an important issue in the states it's on the ballot," Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America (search), said Saturday during an election training conference for activist members. "It will have an impact on us getting out the vote."

Proposals on amendments on gay marriage are expected to be on the ballot in 11 states, including the swing states of Arkansas, Oregon, Michigan and probably Ohio. Those people who say they are likely to vote and who oppose abortion and favor traditional marriage will be heavily recruited by the coalition on Election Day.

The coalition hopes to help re-elect President Bush (search) and add a handful of conservative U.S. senators who will support its agenda. The ultimate goal is loftier: changing the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.

The coalition is finishing interviews of lawmakers for its voter guides, which national field coordinator Bill Thomson called the "B-2 bomber" in its arsenal. Combs wasn't ready to say exactly how many coalition voter guides will be printed. The group handed out 70 million in 2000.

www.foxnews.com...

Bush states that the does not oppose a legal arrangement to protect the rights of homosexual unions:

Bush Clarifies Gay Union Stance
Wednesday, October 27, 2004

WASHINGTON � Some conservative groups expressed dismay Tuesday over President Bush's tolerance of state-sanctioned civil unions between gay people � laws that would grant same-sex partners most or all the rights available to married couples.

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so," Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.

"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights," said Bush, who has pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage . "States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry backs civil unions for gay couples, too. He opposes gay marriage but also opposes the idea of a constitutional ban. Some conservative organizations sharply disagreed with Bush and pressed him to seek a constitutional amendment that would ban both gay marriage and civil unions.

"Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute , an affiliate of Concerned Women For America. "But I don't think President Bush has thought about it in that way. He seems to be striving for neutrality while defending marriage itself."

www.foxnews.com...

Conservatives are pleased with the bans on "gay marriage:"

Conservatives Cheer Gay Marriage Bans
Thursday, November 04, 2004

Elated by an 11-for-11 rejection of gay marriage in state elections, conservatives Wednesday urged Congress to follow suit by approving a federal constitutional amendment that would extend the prohibition nationwide. The state victories "are a prelude to the real battle," said Matt Daniels, whose Alliance for Marriage has pushed for congressional action. "Ultimately, only our Federal Marriage Amendment will protect marriage."

Gay activists, though dejected by the overwhelming rebuff, vowed to keep fighting in the courts for marriage rights. Several lawsuits are pending, and more are planned. Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force described the election results as "a right hook to the chin ... but certainly not a knockout." Said Oregon activist Roey Thorpe, "On the road to equality and freedom there are always setbacks."

Oregon represented gay-rights groups' best hope for victory, but an amendment banning same-sex marriage prevailed there with 57 percent of the votes, leaving some activists in tears. Similar bans won by larger margins in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio and Utah.

More than 20 million Americans voted on the measures, which triumphed overall by a 2-to-1 ratio. In the four Southern states, the amendments received at least three-quarters of the votes, including 86 percent in Mississippi; the closest outcome besides Oregon was in Michigan

www.foxnews.com...

Homosexuals launch a counter-attack:

Lawsuit Challenges Okla. Gay Marriage Ban
Thursday, November 04, 2004

TULSA, Okla. � Two lesbian couples filed a federal lawsuit that challenges a new state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage as well as a related federal law.

Oklahoma was one of 11 states that approved constitutional bans on gay marriage Tuesday. The federal lawsuit filed Wednesday says the state ban violates the equal protection and due process rights of the plaintiffs by not allowing them to marry and by not recognizing civil unions performed elsewhere. The lawsuit also challenges the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which permits states to ignore gay weddings performed in other states.

The plaintiffs are Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin of Broken Arrow, who have lived together for eight years, and Susan G. Barton and Gay E. Phillips of Tulsa, who were joined in a civil union in Vermont in 2001. The other states that approved such amendments Tuesday were Oregon, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Utah.

www.foxnews.com...

[edit on 04/11/6 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by edsinger
Thats it! Thats exactly my point. It is a sin! As I have said, they are all sins, and God dislikes them all. From speeding to homosexuality. It is just he has specifically spoken of homosexuality.

Wait, God hates speeding just as much as he hates homosexuality? THAT'S a good one! So American laws are also God's laws now? What if I moved to Canada and the law was different? Would that mean that God judges people differently not by their actions but in fact by where they live and whose law is applied to them? Well, everytime I see someone throw a piece of trash on the ground, I'll regard them as a murderer. hell, why not classify them as Satan? It's law here, god sees it equal right?

How can you even compare one of our feeble laws to anything God condems. And for Christians being so proud to quote the bible, how could you EVER dare to make an assumption that is not carved into those nice stone tablets.

Seems a bit hypocritical to me. But hell, this whole Godforsaken planet looks hypocritcal to me. It's too bad that anyone born into this country and ends up going over 55 mph is going to hell unless they repent.

Forgive me, Lord, for I have sinned. No, wait, lets revise it. Forgive America, for we have sinned against our own, we have sinned against freedom, and we have dragged a faceless man's cruified body into this debate to justify our twisted agenda. That sounds better.

EDIT: Grady- I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with your last post, ut I have something to say about it. THANK GOD they retalliate, its good to know that someone isn't going to let an ambiguous force control their lives. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, thats what gays are after. Oh wait, isn't that what AMERICA is supposed to be after? Wow, takes care of that battle!

[edit on 11-6-04 by Scat]

Originally posted by Scat
It's too bad that anyone born into this country and ends up going over 55 mph is going to hell unless they repent.

I'd hate to live where you do. The speed limit here is 75 mph.

EDIT: Grady- I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with your last post...

Is this not a worthy subject, in its own right, without the attribution of ulterior motives? Have we gotten to the point that unbiased reporting is suspect, because of its rarity?

I really wasn't suspicious of anything, nor did I assume any alterior motives. I really just didn't understand what point or subject you were backing. If you read the top of the page when typing a post, it says "please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item." That last clause was what I was referring to, and I was just wonderng if you had one.

And yes, the speed limit here is 55. It's a hassle, to say the least.

Grady:

Are you going to tell us how homosexuals are deleterious to society and utter atrophy to the "American Dream" you laud so much..

Enough with the red herring.

Deep

[edit on 6-11-2004 by ZeroDeep]

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Enough with the red herring.

There's no red herring here, Zero. I have my opinions, but I have chosen to leave them pretty much unspoken. I have never said anything against homosexuals. What I have spoken out about is the agenda pushed by homosexuals over the last thirty to thirty-five years.

Homosexuals started out by asking the rest of us to stay out of the bedroom. Now we are having to deal with it in our streets, our classrooms, and all the places that personal sexual behavior should not be a topic of discussion or public display.

Are you regressing your earlier passive implications that homosexuals were an "ANOMIE" ?

Deep

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Are you regressing your earlier passive implications that homosexuals were an "ANOMIE" ?

Deep

You need to consult google, Zero.

When I used the term, anomie, I was responding to your assertion that marriage can be anything we, individually, decide it to be without considering the long-term societal effects, or historical perspectives.

This would surely be an easy thread to skip over. Most probably it would be advantageous to not comment on. I do see that there have been some comments however so I will add a few of my own.

Firstly, I applaud you Grady for posting this thread. Not that I agree or disagree with what you've posted but I applaud that you posted it. Of all the subjects we seem to have the hardest dealing with, homosexuality and racism are the top of the list. Add to each- are their agendas?

As this thread is not dealing with racism (thank goodness) I'll try to stay on topic. Homosexuality is and has been an issue for decades, maybe forever- I don't know. The recent gay-marriage discords in America have proven some issues relating to homosexuality are far from settled. The agenda movement toward gay-marriage was refuted.

As with any individual choice one can do whatever they want within bounds, however when one chooses to showcase their life upon others then reactions can and often are not what was expected. Even gay-supporters will have to admit that many, many are the times that views regarding something are begun with statements such as ' I'm gay and . . . .'. Seldom is the time anyone says 'I'm straight and . . . .'(unless the topic is gayness of some sort). It seems agenda-driven to me.

To people offended by negative homosexual comments I can only offer that they should awaken themselves that others may be just as offended by positive or supportive comments. When anyone makes the state of their crotch a requisite portion of a conversation it is dishonest to expect a lone sided discussion. This has happened for years. I fully suspect that the time of quietude is past..

Agendas are king/queen at the moment-

You do realize that many people that are homophobic have latent, homosexual tendancies themselves, right?...

As with any individual choice one can do whatever they want within bounds, however when one chooses to showcase their life upon others then reactions can and often are not what was expected.

Could you clarify what exactly you mean by showcase. Sounds like we're all in an off Broadway musical.

Even gay-supporters will have to admit that many, many are the times that views regarding something are begun with statements such as ' I'm gay and . . . .'. Seldom is the time anyone says 'I'm straight and . . . .'(unless the topic is gayness of some sort). It seems agenda-driven to me.

Where do you get this from, gay people you know? Are you sure they're not suffering from OCD or something. Personally, unless the fact is pertinent to the conversation or situation at hand I don't feel much need to re-assert my sexuallity on every occasion. Of course I'm doing it now as it's a discussion regarding sexuality but on a general day to day basis....no.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Homosexuals started out by asking the rest of us to stay out of the bedroom. Now we are having to deal with it in our streets, our classrooms, and all the places that personal sexual behavior should not be a topic of discussion or public display.

how often have you seen a heterosexual couple kissing on the street or in a park or something? How often are heterosexual relationships discussed in public? Much more often than any homosexual topics are.

To the posters who support the theory that there is a "gay agenda":

Do you fear gay people?

Originally posted by jupiter869
To the posters who support the theory that there is a "gay agenda":

Do you fear gay people?

To the posters who deny a gay agenda, why do you deny the obvious?

To the posters who live in reality...

What difference does it make bickering over this on a message board like little children when you have no ability to physically change anything yourself....

Of course...The same can be said for every other thread on ATS....

Did I just defeat the purpose of my own post?!

Or maybe not....Some of ya'll take this kinda # far too seriously...

Such is life....