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