Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Huge anti-gay marriage protest in France

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Certainly we are encouraaged to love one another in Christianity. We are not encouraged to applaud or approve activities or sanctions which lead to the death of the family or to actions that are ultimately harmful to the individual.


Certainly, but it seems we are drifting way off topic now. What does any of these factors have to do with extremists protesting gay marriage laws? Unless, perhaps you are suggesting those protesters may be inciting actions that would harm individuals?



Extremists? Somewhere between 150,000 and 1 million showing up to protest what they thought was extremism? Sounds more like "average citizens"




posted on May, 26 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Certainly, but it seems we are drifting way off topic now. What does any of these factors have to do with extremists protesting gay marriage laws? Unless, perhaps you are suggesting those protesters may be inciting actions that would harm individuals?


Extremists? Somewhere between 150,000 and 1 million showing up to protest what they thought was extremism? Sounds more like "average citizens"



"Average citizens" are quite capable of extremism if they are inciting harm against other individuals.
edit on 26-5-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Certainly, but it seems we are drifting way off topic now. What does any of these factors have to do with extremists protesting gay marriage laws? Unless, perhaps you are suggesting those protesters may be inciting actions that would harm individuals?


Extremists? Somewhere between 150,000 and 1 million showing up to protest what they thought was extremism? Sounds more like "average citizens"



"Average citizens" are quite capable of extremism if they are inciting harm against other individuals.
edit on 26-5-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)


So what harm was being incited?? They were chastizing their leaders who had approved the thing. I failed to see any evidence of threats--no car burnings or bombs, or beatings, or beheadings. and many brought their whole family along.

Of course, Liberals seem to frequently call people who disagree with them "extremists."
edit on 26-5-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-5-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Originally posted by kaylaluv
This isn't surprising. France has a large Roman Catholic population. Roman Catholics are known for their anti-gay (i.e., homophobic) stance. Their numbers are going down though - but they won't go out without a fight. It's their right to try, I suppose. But they are on the wrong side of history, so they will lose in the end.


To the majority of people, Christian or otherwise, homosexual sodomy has always been a detestable act, frequently punishable by death.


But straight sodomy is fine huh?
It's ignorance, fear and prejudice and comes from rednecks and the religious right nutjobs who always worry about what other people are doing.

I say good on gay marriage. It doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect you, you only think it does.

I choose not to be a bigot.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Originally posted by kaylaluv
This isn't surprising. France has a large Roman Catholic population. Roman Catholics are known for their anti-gay (i.e., homophobic) stance. Their numbers are going down though - but they won't go out without a fight. It's their right to try, I suppose. But they are on the wrong side of history, so they will lose in the end.


To the majority of people, Christian or otherwise, homosexual sodomy has always been a detestable act, frequently punishable by death.


But straight sodomy is fine huh?
It's ignorance, fear and prejudice and comes from rednecks and the religious right nutjobs who always worry about what other people are doing.

I say good on gay marriage. It doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect you, you only think it does.

I choose not to be a bigot.


Would you not have a problem if your son was to be buggered? If you think that approval of actions that only directly affect someone else can not indirectly affect you, you need to rethink a bit.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

So what harm was being incited?? They were chastizing their leaders who had approved the thing. I failed to see any evidence of threats--no car burnings or bombs, or beatings, or beheadings. and many brought their whole family along.


I am sure their protest was entirely directed against their government for passing those laws and clearly were in no way directing any anger or ill-will against the citizens who may peacefully avail themselves of such laws.


Of course, Liberals seem to frequently call people who disagree with them "extremists."


Often those who use divisive or polarizing labels fail to recognize the extremity in the use of such nor the gradient nature of the larger world beyond their immediate perceptions.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

So what harm was being incited?? They were chastizing their leaders who had approved the thing. I failed to see any evidence of threats--no car burnings or bombs, or beatings, or beheadings. and many brought their whole family along.


I am sure their protest was entirely directed against their government for passing those laws and clearly were in no way directing any anger or ill-will against the citizens who may peacefully avail themselves of such laws.

-------YES, that appears to be TRUE----MB


Of course, Liberals seem to frequently call people who disagree with them "extremists."


Often those who use divisive or polarizing labels fail to recognize the extremity in the use of such nor the gradient nature of the larger world beyond their immediate perceptions.



---SO calling someone an "Extremist" is less bad than calling someone a "Liberal?" ;-) thanks, that brought a smile to my face.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
ha! funny, one would think that France would be one of the last countries to oppose gay-marriage



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 

I'm not sure of the point (trying to follow the discussion)?

Is the son being "buggered" referring to rape?
Or is it an adult choice, which when done responsibly (like all sex) can be very nice?

In the first instance that would be criminal and horrific.
In the second instance, I'd guess what adults do is their choice.

One finds verses in the Bible where it says a virgin that is raped must marry her rapist, or that a woman who cannot prove she was a virgin on her wedding night must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy, chapter 22).

For centuries fathers lived in that knowledge.
Then there's incest, and the slavery of women which is not condemned.

Yet, suddenly fathers should be concerned about an adult sex act that may or may not occur in a same-sex relationships?

Is the male more holy and sacrosanct than the female?
That means this is all about the preservation of patriarchy, and who penetrates forth.

Yeah, the churches loves patriarchy.
Yet ironically they are also the site of rape.

I'd rather have kids growing up choosing what they like as young adults, and knowing about safe and responsible sex.
Then it's not a parent's job to think about their adult privacy; that's actually disturbing.

"Buggery" makes me think about religion rather than same-sex marriage.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 

I'm not sure of the point (trying to follow the discussion)?

Is the son being "buggered" referring to rape?
Or is it an adult choice, which when done responsibly (like all sex) can be very nice?

In the first instance that would be criminal and horrific.
In the second instance, I'd guess what adults do is their choice.

One finds verses in the Bible where it says a virgin that is raped must marry her rapist, or that a woman who cannot prove she was a virgin on her wedding night must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy, chapter 22).

For centuries fathers lived in that knowledge.
Then there's incest, and the slavery of women which is not condemned.

Yet, suddenly fathers should be concerned about an adult sex act that may or may not occur in a same-sex relationships?

Is the male more holy and sacrosanct than the female?
That means this is all about the preservation of patriarchy, and who penetrates forth.

Yeah, the churches loves patriarchy.
Yet ironically they are also the site of rape.

I'd rather have kids growing up choosing what they like as young adults, and knowing about safe and responsible sex.
Then it's not a parent's job to think about their adult privacy; that's actually disturbing.

"Buggery" makes me think about religion rather than same-sex marriage.







Well, " Halfoldman --in the receptive mood"--, this thread has bounced around quite a bit. Certainly it was not started to attempt approval of OT laws. It was started to note that a large percentage of the French population obviously does not approve of homosexual marriage--and yet their "legal approval" is being forced upon them.

And as far as deviancy in homosexuality--I do think that male homosexuality is far more deviant and harmful to society and to the individual than female homosexuality--particularly for those males who prefer "receptivity".
edit on 26-5-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 

Well thanks MuzzleBreak.

All I ever meant with "receptive" however was the willingness to listen to the ideas of others.

I know what the thread was about.

I was just confused what you meant with:



Would you not have a problem if your son was to be buggered? If you think that approval of actions that only directly affect someone else can not indirectly affect you, you need to rethink a bit.


I asked because out of all the more coherent concerns and arguments against gay marriage, I have never come across this.

Out of all the right-wing institutions of religion and prison, where rape actually occurs, I'm unsure why adult same-sex marriage should form the underlying fear of "buggery".

Actually I'm still somewhat unsure on how to read this.

But nevertheless, your insights on "deviancy" seem quite profound.

One would hope though that marriage is a commitment between two adults, whatever they choose to do, and that everyone realizes that marriage means giving up certain rights out of respect for the partner.

I do admit though that seemingly undemocratic means have been used at times to push same-sex marriage.

A dislike for certain sex acts is not really consequential however, since straight couples are also free to practice "buggery", and the church hasn't interfered for a century or so on what position or days couples can practice procreation (with as little lust as possible).

The question also becomes whether sex has ever been democratic?

edit on 26-5-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 

Well thanks MuzzleBreak.

All I ever meant with "receptive" however was the willingness to listen to the ideas of others.

I know what the thread was about.

I was just confused what you meant with:



Would you not have a problem if your son was to be buggered? If you think that approval of actions that only directly affect someone else can not indirectly affect you, you need to rethink a bit.


I asked because out of all the more coherent concerns and arguments against gay marriage, I have never come across this.

Out of all the right-wing institutions of religion and prison, where rape actually occurs, I'm unsure why adult same-sex marriage should form the underlying fear of "buggery".

Actually I'm still somewhat unsure on how to read this.

But nevertheless, your insights on "deviancy" seem quite profound.



Well, uh, thanks. I think.

I would guess that concerning the topic, and with your screen name and "mood"--- you can see where some might get an opinion regarding your sexual inclinations.

As far as buggery, I mean the usual defintion--but as applied as to older boys or young men as the receiver. Surely most of us have known some of these victims of buggery who have committed suicide, and more who have had to live their lives in shame.

Don't you?

Do you think that legalizing homosexual marriage would increase or decrease the total number of boys and young men who were victims of such activity?

edit on 26-5-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-5-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-5-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-5-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 

Well, actually I am openly gay, but I never meant anything as an innuendo.
I've been celibate for a number of years however.

Anyway, we're supposed to stick to the topic.

And I think it is very important.

I've never been a fanatical supporter of gay marriage, and would have been happy with civil partnerships.
But now that we have it here, I'm quite proud of it.

However, I'm also suspicious on how this is all being stamped onto society.

Gay marriage has not removed homophobia from SA society.
To the contrary, I believe there has been a backlash.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 




As far as buggery, I mean the usual defintion--but as applied as to older boys or young men as the receiver. Surely most of us have known some of these victims of buggery who have committed suicide, and more who have had to live their lives in shame. Don't you? Do you think that legalizing homosexual marriage would increase or decrease the total number of boys and young men who were victims of such activity?


On this trend I'd be quite optimistic that human rights for all would massively reduce abuses.
In SA marriage is the same age for all, which is 18.
Equal rights mean that people will speak up instead of feeling that they somehow deserve rape and abuse.
In fact, anti-male rape laws came pretty much at the same time.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 

Well, actually I am openly gay, but I never meant anything as an innuendo.
I've been celibate for a number of years however.

Anyway, we're supposed to stick to the topic.

And I think it is very important.

I've never been a fanatical supporter of gay marriage, and would have been happy with civil partnerships.
But now that we have it here, I'm quite proud of it.

However, I'm also suspicious on how this is all being stamped onto society.

Gay marriage has not removed homophobia from SA society.
To the contrary, I believe there has been a backlash.



You are correct.

It is being "stamped" onto society--by a certain group intent on the destruction of Christianity and Western culture. They have other agendas, also. And in the past, when they controlled all activities within a nation( i.e. Bolshevik revolution) they had no love for homosexuals then.

What you call "homophobia" could also be called "natural disgust" by a large percentage of the population, couldn't it??.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 

No, I don't think the majority of gays even think about destroying Christianity or Western culture.
In fact, I think gays have vastly contributed to Western culture, and the renaissance wasn't just Michelangelo and Da Vinci (both typically gay for their time).

Homosexuality is not linked only to good, open gay people.
It has its dangers.

However, for a society to cut out gay people means it also cuts out its social evolution and spirit.

In the West "gay culture" very much inherited the hippie free love culture in the 1970s.
I really believe that can change, and has already for many people.

"Homophobia" is also a complex topic.
It can be a cultural disgust that many straight people unlearn very quickly.
To others homosexuality becomes an obsession that they have to fight, and it obviously sets something off deep inside themselves.

Culturally it may be ambiguous, that is, two men might embrace and kiss on the sport field, but cheering that emotion might be very uncomfortable otherwise.
Two men touching must be reduced to violence to be "healthy".

Some say that being a "tough" heterosexual male doesn't only mean being attracted to women, it also means being publicly anti-gay.

Then off course there's the whole notion that society will call you a "weak male" .... and so forth.
edit on 26-5-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 

No, I don't think the majority of gays even think about destroying Christianity or Western culture.
In fact, I think gays have vastly contributed to Western culture, and the renaissance wasn't just Michelangelo and Da Vinci (both typically gay for their time).

Homosexuality is not linked only to good, open gay people.
It has its dangers.

However, for a society to cut out gay people means it also cuts out its social evolution and spirit.

In the West "gay culture" very much inherited the hippie free love culture in the 1970s.
However, I really believe that can change.



I was referring to another group in that comment.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 

Well one could look at the radical gender departments, and their "biophobia".

Apparently coming from a tradition of social constructivism, that should free up people for the class struggle, they deny that gender even essentially exists.

To them "gay people" are modern political subjects, and while homosexuality always existed, the medicalized "homosexual" was only coined anywhere from the late middle ages to the 19th century.

The irony off course is that straight people couldn't exist without gay people as a counterpoint.

While straight people did their things and drudgery, they had no way of actually feeling morally superior about it all until gay people became apparent.


edit on 27-5-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 

Well one could look at the radical gender departments, and their "biophobia".

Apparently coming from a tradition of social constructivism, that should free up people for the class struggle, they deny that gender even essentially exists.

To them "gay people" are modern political subjects, and while homosexuality always existed, the medicalized "homosexual" was only coined anywhere from the late middle ages to the 19th century.



I need some help on exactly what "radical gender departments" are.

And do you mean "political constructs'?
edit on 27-5-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 

I think I'm generally referring here to departments at universities that were heavily influenced by the French postmodernists and Feminists.

Currently they might offer "gender studies" in various places ...
You gotta get with the social constructions.

I think you mean political subjects?

Well, gays were first religious subjects (sinners), then judicial subjects and then clinical subjects.
However that power hid the fact that many gays were in fact political subjects that they wanted to silence.
However, they also began to speak about "homosexuality", and even smuggled the late 19th century term into the KJV Bible.
Even the crudest form of patriarchal heterosexuality suddenly seemed good and moral.
By the construction of the "homosexual" the "heterosexual" finally seemed natural and justified.

Just like there is no awareness of eating the raw without the cooked as a comparison, there was no awareness of the inherent morality of the "straight" without the "gay".

Over time the gay subjects began to organize too, and became a political identity and movement.

edit on 27-5-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join