It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Quiet please....The ultra conservative, fundamentalist religious racist bigot is trying to speak!

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:25 AM

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Koros

If you would like to delve into personal issues that would be appropriate. Otherwise we can discuss here.
Very well. You say that your issues regarding same-sex marriage are rooted in family and how the State treats family. Can you elaborate?

Also, in what ways do you think that same-sex marriage is antithetical to this?

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:41 AM
reply to post by Koros

Very simply put, long before gay marriage became an issue the government has intervened in a way that is hurtful to families. They determine your worth as a parent depending on your sex first, your income second and pretty much anything else can come into play after that. There is a war going on in America and people are being silenced. Legitimate loving parents who want nothing more than to be able to raise their own children. The state has divided the sexes and robbed the family based on income, in a laundering scheme that ultimately harms this children. Separates children from loving fathers and mothers, who are very capable of taking care of them, putting them in a state of dependency where they can no longer raise or support their own children, leaving the children up to the judgement of people who have never spent a day of their lives with that child. People that have no interest in the child.

See gay marriage was never an issue to anyone who hasn't suffered through the pain of losing their rights to raise their own children until the state decided it was an issue. If it is okay for gays to get married and get the same type of benefits that were intended for families to raise children, then where do we draw the line?

I am not against them having a union of some sort and spending their lives together and sharing SOME of the benefits that married couples have.

The state could take your child, without proving in any way that you are unfit or a danger to the child. They can give the child up for adoption for instance to a loving gay family or whatever. Hey, they're legally married, so no longer do they have to bend the rules. They could give your child to a pedophile if it looks good on paper.

Hey Im not saying that gay people shouldn't be able to adopt. But it should be done so at the discretion of the parents who give their child up for adoption.

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:53 AM
Anyways, thats my view on gay marriage and if you dont like it fine. Just agree to disagree.

This thread is not really about that issue specifically.

It is more about the extremely left leaning folks on ATS who call you names and try to belittle you for having a dissenting point of view that doesn't agree with their point of view.

And while they preach about tolerance and equality.

They are some of the most intolerant, divided group I have ever come across.

The ultra conservative, fundamentalist religious racist bigot is done talking now, you can now resume your normal everyday activities.
edit on 17-10-2012 by thehoneycomb because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:10 AM
It is the re-defining of what a "marriage" is, and how the state recognizes one that is the issue with most conservatives.
Get married, to whom ever you love, but the lines have been re-defined, so what if you "love" an under age person, who is to say you can't marry whoever you love?
You see how the "communities" desire to alter what marriage is ,,can slip into a grossly perverted "right", simply because you "love"?
And who is to say I cant "marry" the one I love?Whoever or whatever it is. a relative, an animal,
It is simply a bad "immoral" policy to adopt a re-definition of that sacred communion and try and legitimize it.
In my gracious and humble opinion.,

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:15 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:27 AM

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
I oppose gay marriage.

But if I had a dollar for everyone that told me I was a homophobic bigot I would be rich.

I oppose socialism and communism.

But if I had a dollar for every time I was called a religious fundamentalist neoconservative I would be a millionaire

Understand where you're coming from OP, but honestly ... perhaps for a few months join a few threads and express the opposite view point. Most people can write those sentences ... Here is mine:

I support gay marriage ...

And if I had a dollar for every time I was called a liberal family destroy, agenda setting, Apple product using, no respect giving hippy or some variant of the above I would have ... perhaps not millions, but maybe twenty bucks or so in the last monthish.

I think the worst thing you can do is respond out of frustration or overly generalize your opponents and peers. The whole thing goes both ways ... I notice a tendency for both sides to accuse the other of branding/persecuting/taking moral high grounds. I imagine you've even done it yourself.

I think unfortunately as humans we're more prone to listening to the offensive person rather than the meek respectful person on these issues.

Oops! You just did what I was describing before I'd finished posting!

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
It is more about the extremely left leaning folks on ATS who call you names and try to belittle you for having a dissenting point of view that doesn't agree with their point of view.

^ prime example of what I was describing.

Perhaps stop focusing on those people that do that to you and engage others where possible? If it's the extreme left then it's not a majority.
edit on 17-10-2012 by Pinke because: Oops!

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:35 AM
Op, you are just of guilty of misrepresenting other people's views as other are are with yours. It hardly surprising with the level of debate that has emerged on ATS. People have great knack of reducing debate to the schoolyard level.

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:52 AM
reply to post by Pinke

Ok, good point Pinke.

I am more less at the point of wondering though if there is a website that some posters go to for talking points? After a while many of the arguments sound the same, especially when they dont want to really discuss logical points but instead resort to name calling and baiting.

I wouldn't find it hard to believe that many of the posters on this site, use the same talking points and are working for the same agenda.

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:00 AM
reply to post by thehoneycomb

We are all guilty of using sources that represent our stand points. Notice the amount of links to or whatever it's called.

The thing is if we both did a search on the same topic on google. We would get different results, because google knows what kind f sites you visit. So my search results would reveal more liberal news sources, yours would reveal more conservative sources. It's an unhelpful aspect of modern life that just encourages confirmation bias and blinkered debates. Ii think the confirmation bias is the biggest problem on ats and we are all guilty of it.

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:05 AM

Because in reality, if I have to continue to put up with this type of treatment, then life is probably not worth living anyways.

We live in the end of the age. What was, will be again. 

In the same manner that the crowds in Judea were swayed  by their 'teachers and leaders' to shout for the release of Barabbas, the insurrectionist and murderer, instead of their Saviour Christ Jesus , the very same thing has been done to the generations living in the western world today. What they refuse to understand or believe is that Barabbas means "son of the father", which makes him the prophetic son of perdition - the Dark Knight Rising. He was  'released' by the swayed and led crowd because they listened to their 'teachers and leaders' who themselves killed Christ out of envy of losing their headship over the crowds. Today, most cannot understand that they themselves listen to teachers and leaders likewise obsessed with control over the masses. The only ones that they cannot control are the faithful of Christ Jesus.

"For fear of the Jews" kept it's citizens in line to the Sanhedrin. Today, the very same group has written our laws and taught us that to oppose what they deem "normal" equates to bigotry, intolerance and hatred. These labels keep many silent, and then evil becomes accepted as good in society. Today, this very same group, who's own religious writings tell them that non-Jews are animals, teach our children that they descend from apes and teach our children that since animals commit sodomy in fulfilment of their sexual desires then it's perfectly "normal" to do the same since we are animals. The cruel irony is lost on most.

Christians, like the Son of God,  are persecuted and killed around the world by those who are swayed by their Godless teachers and leaders to reject the salvation that He offers. It's what killed Jesus, and it's what kills His brethren on Earth. 

Hitler changed the ideology and beliefs of his entire country with free radios, film, controlled newspapers and youth indoctrination. Westerners today cannot understand, or refuse to believe,  that it's the very same method which has turned a population who lived in fear of the Lord into a population that openly defies His very existence and laws.

Suicide is at an all time high in our lands thanks to those who work tirelessly to instill conflicting values into hearts which are inscribed with our Creator's commands. You will either choose one of two paths like all of us. Choose good and life or evil and death. The former comes from Our Creator and the latter from the beast. Those who choose Jesus as their King or Ceasar as their king.

What was, will be again.

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:23 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

Once in a rare while, my google searches from different devices dont pull up the same results. Besides my ATS I keep my social interactions on the internet minimal. I also don't do any business over the internet unless through email. I think that location would play a bigger role, that and sites like Facebook etc, one place I hardly visit, because I dont care what color socks you wore today.

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:26 AM
reply to post by WhoKnows100

Thanks for sharing your post with me. For whatever its worth, it made me feel alot better.

There was a time in my life that I feel I had turned my back on Christ. Sometimes I can't help not feeling like I am paying the price for that.

ETA: I know the answer already I should seek his forgiveness, just wanted to share.
edit on 17-10-2012 by thehoneycomb because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:36 AM
reply to post by thehoneycomb

Although I haven't read anything yet to justify your strong thread title and self-description, I'd like your opinion on further adoption issues.

Adoption often goes to the very heart of true and alarmist concerns, as well as to identity and the current political issues.

In South Africa we have a constitution that allows equality for all, and gay couples can apply for adoption, although they face stringent tests.

However there are also racial debates over adoptions.

Some experts have said that "adoption" in the Western sense wasn't traditionally customary in African culture.
An orphaned child was taken in by the extended family or relatives (clan).
Regionally in southern Africa wife inheritance was/is also practiced (that means a widow and her kids are inherited by the next-eldest brother, similar to Old Testament law).

However, especially with the AIDS pandemic there are many orphaned and abandoned children whose parents died, or children who are HIV-positive.

Nevertheless, despite such factors many discussions on radio and so forth make it clear that some Africans don't want black children raised by whites.
They might lose their language and customs, or even be exploited.
There were huge debates when Madonna adopted a Malawian child, for example.
It's not an issue most people would get violent about, but they are opinionated.

I think I've heard it claimed by Native American activists like Russel Means that the amount of children taken from Indian communities and raised by other cultures amounts to a kind of genocide.

I'm not sure how many parents from other races and cultures are currently raising adoptive kids from a Christian background. Perhaps religion isn't even the main factor, but losing other cultural teachings like language and oral history.

Are there any white kids being raised by Native American or African American parents?

Conversely there's a growing poor white issue in South Africa, and some whites are wondering why white liberal stars only come to Africa to adopt black babies, and whether it's some kind of fashion statement?
Perhaps there aren't as many, but in SA there are also white babies who still need a good home too?

Do you think cultures should cross-adopt as an "ultra conservative racist bigot", or do you think it would be better to support orphanages run by local communities, or to encourage some form of adoption within the race and culture of the child as far as possible, or do some religions and cultures just have more rights to all children because of their historical "superiority"?

Of course it's a theoretical argument, because the fact is that people have raised adoptive children from various cultures very successfully too in many cases, and so have many gay parents.

However despite the evidence that things can be done, there's clearly still arguments on whether they should be done.

So, if some people have the opinion that gays shouldn't adopt from straight families or parents, then it's understandable that some cultures say their kids shouldn't be adopted by another culture (no matter how many privileges and advantages that may imply for the child).
Is it better to grow up poor and underprivileged in one's own race and culture, rather than being given to another?

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:54 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

Hi halfoldman.

I think that having parents as opposed to no parents is always the better way to go. I see not too many issues if the parents adopt the child as I believe that even if parents dont feel like they can provide for them because they are in poverty, they would want whats best for their children and if they choose to adopt they would show that by showing an interest in who they adopt to. I think that the human element is crucial, when it is left to the state it amounts to legal paperwork that doesnt always work to the benefit of the child. I don't think race is a huge issue, but it is something worth considering. Many people come from different backgrounds and cultures, so its worth considering wether or not that would that be a benefit to the child.

Now for those children who have been abandoned, In a perfect world, (they wouldnt be abondoned) maybe the child if it is of reasonable age could have its own vetting process? There are no easy answers but I dont see too many issues with race, though there could be benefits as well as negative aspects* to the child (*sorry cant find the right word).

Money does not determine everything, but especially in cases of extreme poverty, some is better than none.

Also I think that in America, it goes both ways, but it is probably more common for a white family to adopt a black child. I don't mean to speculate, but I do know of one family who has adopted a black child and I dont think they adopted her from Africa or anything like that, (yeah thats typically celebrities) I think that her parents did not feel like they could take care of her or she was inner city. I also do know another couple who has adopted some black children from Africa I believe, but that is not very common.
edit on 17-10-2012 by thehoneycomb because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by thehoneycomb

I appreciate the reply.

I wouldn't say race or a strong affiliations by a community for such children isn't a strong concern, particularly by groups who feel they were sometimes historically robbed of their children simply because they were racially disempowered.
I think perhaps they would disagree strongly that a racially biased world had little to do with who adopted whom.

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 03:17 AM

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Suicide is at an all time high in our lands thanks to those who work tirelessly to instill conflicting values into hearts which are inscribed with our Creator's commands.

This isn't happening at all.

If you're American, I've made this graph for you: Graph

You can make other charts, and there are other sources for the information if you're not American. Some countries don't keep good stats, but suicide isn't going up at any alarming rate.

I would address the normal equates to bigotry thing, but this isn't the place for it.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Pinke

I wouldn't find it hard to believe that many of the posters on this site, use the same talking points and are working for the same agenda.

I think persons naturally read the same online rhetoric at times. I don't think people are working together, I just think they have similar interests or are informed similar ways.

It would be nice if people familiarized themselves with common arguments and debated from that knowledge, but it's a web forum not a university I guess!

The reason it sucks is it allows people to prop each other constantly in a self repeating cycle and, at times, reinforce incorrect beliefs or facts like booster injections. It's not about learning or understanding; it becomes about 'winning' and 'us vs. them.

Examples, a lot of Americans likely believe they have to hire a transsexual or can be sued for discriminating against a man in a dress. Or as above ... a great many people believe the suicide and violence rates of the USA and UK etc are on a constant rise over the decades ... Or the very common one, the belief of sole persecution.

Religious people do it. Atheists do it. Gay people do it. White heterosexuals love doing it. We're allegedly all the victim and it makes things easier to believe if we have an 'enemy'. The other side is always harsher and meaner, we're always smaller, and they're always making everything worse.

Example is you thanking the person above you. They share your beliefs so 'normal = bigotry' and the rest of the statement is easy to accept. Fact of the matter is it isn't just Christians being persecuted and killed it is a great many people and none of us should put up with it. I don't believe Hitler's strategy would work on the same scale any more simply because the internet prevents it. As a group we can deconstruct disinfo faster than ever before, and we're learning. We still fall for it but we're quicker than ever.

I'm not a 'normal' person in the context of the posts above. I'm one of those monkey animal persons I guess, and I'm offering you a booster shot, too. Am asking you to not embrace the negativity of being a victim of people's disagreement or persecution etc, and not to retreat to the safe haven of people who agree with your own beliefs and rhetoric.

There are people on the other side of the fence who are maybe a little bitter (hope you don't mind me saying) just like you in exactly the same way. Be the change you wanna be and talk to the folks who disagree with you kinda like we are now? Learn what makes them tick? Make a friend even? Ask them questions. I think I know how you feel cos I've kinda been there and understand a bit.

I learn a lot from my conservative and religious friends even if it's just understanding where they're coming from. Maybe you can let go of that frustration and learn a little from us monkey person types, too? We're not all bad, and you have to admit we have some pretty amazing hair cuts.

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:30 AM
Yawn another one of those that don't want no one get in their way, are not willing to help people they never met but will suddenly want to control others on who they want to marry.

It's not your business, why bother?
Let people be and do whatever they want to do if it doesn't negatively influence you and your environment.

But no, you are probably too selfish and clueless.


posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:36 AM

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Koros

My views against gay marriage are deeply rooted in the family. That would be how the state treats the family, or in many cases, enjoys playing the role of breaking it apart.

I am not opposed to gay people having relationships, or sharing the same health coverage or insurance for example.

Hope that helps.

but marriage is basically a legal contract. No one is forcing any church to "marry" gay people btw.

Also, how is it a breakdown of the "family". ??? Marriage is a commitment to a more stable relationship. If anti gay marriage "pro family" people are so gung ho about saving the family why don't they spend more of their energy and time railing against "living in sin" (to hetersexuals shacking up) ??

Why don't they target reality TV that makes a mockery of marriage and relationships... how about celebrity weddings?

yet they target people who love each other and want to remain committed to each other and have the same LEGAL benefits as two heterosexual people (which is more than just sharing health benefits btw)

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:50 AM
reply to post by WhoKnows100

Mate, I don't see how these stories relate to the original poster's question. Please, would you practice your preaching in some other place?

Now about the real issue here. I too have a point of view that let's say isn't the left-wing liberalism that is oh so trendy nowadays. And yes, I do get my share of insults... I do want to see more people ellaborate on the answers here.

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Koros
reply to post by thehoneycomb

On most of those, I can see where your stance inspired inaccurate representations of you as a person. However, I am curious, how can one oppose same-sex marriage and not be a homophobe or bigot?

I'm not trying to start a fight here. I honestly want to know how those are reconciled.

I would suggest that one could disagree with a certain behavior without actually hating the person himself or herself.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in