Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Homosexual Agenda

page: 37
3
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Being gay isn't a choice is it? The Gheys have been about for thousands of years. How about ghey animals? Do they have some sort of twisted agenda to destroy their own species? What sort of agenda are the Gheys pushing for? Social acceptance?




posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Umm, question..
Since when do I have an agenda?

I don't think you should really say the gay/homosexual agenda, rather "the agenda of a group of some homosexual individuals" or something like that.

Anyways, I believe we all, regardless of anything, should have the same rights.

Also, I don't believe in marriage at all, maybe civil unions, but I figure that a person should'nt have to be tied down to one person if they don't want to.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
The Gheys have been about for thousands of years.


What is "ghey," a British variant?



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
What is "ghey," a British variant?


Never mind:

www.urbandictionary.com



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
saying that homosexuals have an agenda is the same as heterosexuals have an agenda.

look at heterosexuals as a whole, and tell me if you can find some sort of clear, coherent, agenda.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
The Lord jesus Christ had an agenda; it was called Tolerance and Forgiveness.

I believe we have our own sins to contend with, we do not have to point out the sins of others.

It is not possible for us to like or understand everyone, but we we must be tolerant.

I am not gay, I am a White, Christian Male, married dad of two and I do not understand how people can use Christianity to base their hatred of any one. Christianity in its finest form tells US to repent of our sins, it does not tell us to hate.

It could be my rose colored glasses but I think all Christians should be looking toward the agenda of the Lord shouldn't they?



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwhite
The Lord jesus Christ had an agenda; it was called Tolerance and Forgiveness.

I believe we have our own sins to contend with, we do not have to point out the sins of others.

It is not possible for us to like or understand everyone, but we we must be tolerant.

I am not gay, I am a White, Christian Male, married dad of two and I do not understand how people can use Christianity to base their hatred of any one. Christianity in its finest form tells US to repent of our sins, it does not tell us to hate.

It could be my rose colored glasses but I think all Christians should be looking toward the agenda of the Lord shouldn't they?


FINALLY, a good response from a good christian! criticizing christians, not denying hate dished out by christians, not endorsing hate, AND telling people that sins are between a person and god!!!


i might consider giving you my wayabove vote, woodwhite.

this is what we need more of in threads.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
... Getting there, just try and apply that a little bit further...

You don't have to expand your self righteousness much beyond the kerb

(I know how it's so fashionable to love Jesus and hate the poor these days.)

Just a little bit of reality... if you'll let me...




The Lord Jesus Christ had an agenda; it was called Tolerance and Forgiveness.

I believe we have our own sins to contend with, we do not have to point out the sins of others.

It is not possible for us to like or understand everyone, but we must be tolerant.


Exactly.

If you believe society creates gayness then what is and how long exactly does it take before the dictates of society become normal human behaviour?

The time of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhaenaten, circa 3000 odd BC; the first recorded homosexual?

The time of Socrates and Plato? Both total bufties?

That of Alexander the Great? Himself a right raging woofter?

Maybe it was the time of Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci? Those nasty little church defying Genius poof cats.

Hang on, maybe it was the completely socially, sexually and straight laced puritanical times of Oscar Wilde?


Naa.......: that would mean life existed before me…


Hmm......................


Naa...






[edit on 2-2-2006 by kegs]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
The problem is the fact that homosexuality is considered sinful. You say its okay but why don't you just not consider it a sin?

WoodWhite is on the right track, and there are alot of Christians that think that way, but theres one little obstacle that needs to be crossed...

He states that we all sin and to preach love, well rather than considering homosexuality still a sin why not accept homosexuals for who they are?

[edit on 4-2-2006 by Kacen]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Traditionally, what is considered sinful are those things that cause harm to oneself and others and especially, society. One might think that humanity could eventually just decide that a practice will be acceptable and move on, but there are things that for some reason create such a visceral response in the majority that its acceptance becomes impossible.

Homosexuality is on one of those and I would guess that incest and sex with children are right up there, too. Not that any of these should be anyone else's business from the stand point that many people try to justify homosexuality.

A man might decide that it is alright to have sex with his children of either sex and that because the only persons involved are him and his family that the society has no business intruding into one's family's activities, you know, and as long as no one gets hurt and surely, it can be argued that sexual activity is pleasurable for even children and that it is society that imposes the guilt-trip on the kids and that if something is pleasurable to all involved then surely, there can be no harm done and those who don't approve should just butt out.

But, I imagine that by now there are surely those who having read the preceding paragraph are crying, sweating, foaming at the mouth and are ready to notify the authorities. Now, should I say that these people are insane and that their emotions are invalid and that their morals are archaic because the whole idea of incest is based on ideas of chattel and tribal customs and that if a child finds masturbation pleasurable then giving the kid a little help and encouraging reciprocity can't possibly be wrong?

Well, I could, but I'd probably be beaten to death before I could finish the sentence if I were to say so in the public square, because it just doesn't matter how logical I try to make my case, logic just doesn't get a chance when people's blood pressure reaches astronomical limits.

So, I think that this is basically what the homosexual community is up against. Just as homosexuals can't help how they feel about members of their own sex, homophobes can't help how they feel about homosexuals and all the vilifying on either side doesn't make either side feel any differently.

So, since neither side can help how they feel, the only thing that society can expect is that people in the absence of emotional control will demonstrate a modicum of behavioral control. Now, who's in the majority?


[edit on 2006/2/4 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Grady; after reading your first paragraph I thought, okay, here's an intelligent guy, he might give me a good argument as to why he thinks I'm wrong.

I do LOVE a good argument.

I'm sorry to say I'm disappointed.

All you had for your next four paragraphs was the desperate, and I mean desperate cliché that the hardcore anti gay people come out with time after time, that I'm sure, if you actually looked at it logically, you would see for the fallacy it is.

First of, both hetrosexual realtionships and homosexual realtionships can go wrong and be abusive, neither is perfect, and neither should be expected to be so.

The idea that supporting rights for gay people will lead to people supporting rights for paedophiles and people that partake in incest and bestiality is ludicrous for one very simple reason.

A normal gay relationship, like any normal heterosexual relationship is a mutually agreed on relationship between two consenting adults that are completely free to make their own decisions.

Both child abuse and bestiality are not consensual, and never will be which is why they will never be accepted. Both involve someone taking advantage of another. That is not acceptable in any logical beings book.

That is a very, very VERY large difference that you choose to ignore.

Grown men taking advantage of young boys is still child abuse, gay or not, just as the same applies to abuse of young girls. Some 'opponents' (to put it lightly) to gay rights put forward the ludicrious notion that gay men are more likely to be paedophiles than straight men. To even allude to such crude propaganda, something so obviously born from a cradle of hatred only makes even more of a mockery of your argument.

As for incest, incest is incest, no matter the sexual orientation of those involved. Not much explanation needed there.

Unless you are suggesting some kind of inherited and unavoidable perversion due solely to sexuality, which I wouldn’t be surprised if you are, you are wrong.


Oh, and i'm not gay. As if it matters, though to you I suppose it does.

Just a guy that thinks that everyone should have the same rights as everyone else. Call me old fashioned if you will.



[edit on 5-2-2006 by kegs]



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
One thing that should be made clear at this time. I am not in the least bit interested in the sexual activity of anyone. Homosexuals only bother me when I am the object of their desire and in those cases, I simply announce that I am not interested. I don't dislike gays, in fact, I have worked with may whom I have respected for a variety of reason.

The intent of my previous post was to offer a hypothetical of the logic than can be used to justify all kinds of sexual activity and the fact that logical justifications are wasted on those whose emotions override logic.

This is not to say that logic can justify all sexual unions, but that emotion prevents many from even entertaining such.

Homosexuals claim that they can't help how they feel about members of their own gender. Pedophiles claim they can't help being attracted to children. Few people can understand that homophobes might not be able to control how they feel about homosexuals and pedophiles.

This seems to be a bone of contention among the groups. I was merely pointing it out and why the advance of deviant sexual activity is not likely to enjoy wide acceptance anytime soon.

[edit on 2006/2/5 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   

One thing that should be made clear at this time. I am not in the least bit interested in the sexual activity of anyone. Homosexuals only bother me when I am the object of their desire and in those cases, I simply announce that I am not interested. I don't dislike gays, in fact, I have worked with may whom I have respected for a variety of reason.



BS, Grady. This is a 34 page thread about gays that you started with this phrase:


Many have claimed that there is no gay agenda. Many have claimed that the agenda is only about equality. Others claim that the agenda is all about destroying the traditional and replacing it with the revolutionary. This should be a discussion of the social movements associated with Homosexuality.



You’ve got your discussion. Don’t bitch about it now.




The intent of my previous post was to offer a hypothetical of the logic than can be used to justify all kinds of sexual activity and the fact that logical justifications are wasted on those whose emotions override logic.



You don’t even know who I am and yet you know my emotions are overloading my logic? Is that right?
I’d laugh if that wasn’t such a sad indictment of the real problem.



Homosexuals claim that they can't help how they feel about members of their own gender. Paedophiles claim they can't help being attracted to children. Few people can understand that homophobes might not be able to control how they feel about homosexuals and paedophiles.




Man, the fact you don’t even understand how offensive that is speaks volumes. No... Actually, forget offensive, it means nothing now.

How illogical that is? How many trips, skips, jumps and illogical hoops you’d have to jump through to accept something so steaming of faeces as even close to truth? How many geniuses you’d have to avoid, discredit and downright ignore on your backwoods journey through the sewers of history to get that far into such a twisted opinion of reality? I don't know. I don’t envy you that.

Sit in your toilet filled with your own verbal BS. If it makes you happy.

Okay. They're all evil and want to kill you. You better go out and buy a really big gun.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by GradyPhilpott Many have claimed that there is no gay agenda. Many have claimed that the agenda is only about equality. Others claim that the agenda is all about destroying the traditional and replacing it with the revolutionary. This should be a discussion of the social movements associated with Homosexuality.


There is nothing in the above statement that negates the following statement or indicates about how I feel about the sexual activity of others:


originally posted by GradyPhilpott One thing that should be made clear at this time. I am not in the least bit interested in the sexual activity of anyone. Homosexuals only bother me when I am the object of their desire and in those cases, I simply announce that I am not interested. I don't dislike gays, in fact, I have worked with may whom I have respected for a variety of reason.



originally posted by kegs You don’t even know who I am and yet you know my emotions are overloading my logic? Is that right?
I’d laugh if that wasn’t such a sad indictment of the real problem.


You're personalizing a generalization about large groups of people.


originally posted by kegs Man, the fact you don’t even understand how offensive that is speaks volumes. No... Actually, forget offensive, it means nothing now.


The argument du jour for acceptance of homosexuality is that "we can't help how we are." "God made us this way." I don't see how my acknowledging and extending it to others is offensive.

I think your emotional reaction to my post illustrates my point.

I am also glad that this discussion flourishes, although I do wish it was a bit more cerebral.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Grady there was absolutely no advancement of the argument in your last post apart from the assumptive repetition of the flimsy (at best) argument that because I happened to be born in the western hemisphere I should bow down to the general folklore and superstition that happens to be Christianity; conveniently ignoring all the pick and choose factors therein.

Speaking as someone brought up as a Catholic…

Sorry, but no.

Try again.


[edit on 6-2-2006 by kegs]



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I am, unsurprising to some, going to agree with Grady. Many sexual deviancies are responded to in the same vein, it just so happens that Homosexuality is so prevalent that it has some supportive backing for equal treatment of gay people.

Emotions are what rules the decisions which push people to be abhorred of deviant sexualities, it is the inability to accept nor understand different sexualities than yourself which cause the problems. This has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with personal human bias.

Worse yet, some "SICK" points of view are mere reflections of what we like to term "Civilized Society", meaning they are no more "Sick" than is going to the market for some bread. Why it is treated in such a fashion is because society itself finds it both unacceptable and abhorrent according to specific moral codes, again having nothing to do with LOGIC.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
Sorry, but no.

Try again.


Kegs, I don't recall anyone dying and leaving you in charge here. I make my argument and you accept or reject it as you will. I am unconcerned with your opinion of my opinion. State your case and leave it at that.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Killing in the name of God has become so associated with Islam that we sometimes forget that such behavior is not limited to Muslims. This Orthodox Jew became so enraged over a gay pride parade in Jerusalem that he attacked and injured several participants. He has been sentenced to prison for attempted murder.



An ultra-Orthodox Jew has been given a 12-year jail term for stabbing three people during a gay pride march held in Jerusalem last year.

Yishai Schlisel told police he wanted to kill homosexuals "in the name of God" for parading in the holy city.

One man and two women were hurt when Schlisel attacked the colourful crowd of dancing, kissing revellers.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
'Christianity says' 'Islam says' 'Judaism says'

Where's the logic Grady? Where's the logic?

Is Religion supposed to be considered as some kind of 'logic' now?






[edit on 9-2-2006 by kegs]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
Is Religion supposed to be considered as some kind of 'logic' now?


From a sociological perspective, it is impossible to separate religion from human activity. Certain behaviors are forbidden by religion because a human being has said that God forbids such behavior. My personal take on the Bible is that countless generations have observed that certain behaviors have led to personal and social ruin and that these observations have been redacted as the word of God. So, from that perspective there is logic involved. Not everyone who espouses a religion and its precepts bothers to employ logic, but because something is grounded in religion doesn't make it illogical.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join