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.

 

Simple question re: homosexuality

page: 10
41
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   
It would be great to see the venom and spite directed at the red herring gay marriage debate, being thrown at the lifelong damage that has been done to innocent children...I am speechless...the amount of time being spent on the ins and outs of homosexuality is an abhorrent reflection of priorities gone horribly wrong in a supposedly moral institution...just speechless...

Å99




posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 

Dear markosity1973,

I see you've added some additional thoughts to your post, let me look at it.

Secondly, all of those groups you have mentioned have either broken the law, or have avenues to gain rights through the citizenship process and pensioners gain benefits, not lose them.
All I was trying to do was show that government treats individuals differently, sometimes based on their behavior, sometimes based on their characteristics.

The rich pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the poor, and the blind have programs to help them run businesses in Federal buildings. Just about any unusual group gets treated differently. The Supreme Court tells us that discrimination based on behavior is more easily justified than discrimination based on characteristics. The only "right" a gay person doesn't have, as far as I know, is to get governmental recognition of a marriage between two people of the same sex. In the past, nobody had that "right." Changes are in store.

I understand that gays would like to have a government recognized marriage, but I see no basis for claiming it as a right. Especially not for claiming it as a Constitutional right.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   
I have an idea.

For those with the belief that they have an invisible friend, who says that for boy-boy and girl-girl to want to be married and have (approved by the upper case 'proper' noun entity some call God or Yahweh or Jehovah, Allah, etc) sex is so naughty that after they die they'll be punished for eternity (and maybe even longer because the invisible mute entity is angry), yes, for these people we make a new phrase for the non-sinners called 'True Marriage', which can only be performed in God-bothering homophobic churches.

For the rest of us, the term 'marriage' to be retained, to cover legal and other relevant issues,

Wikipedia opens with this on marriage :

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.

I see no reason that what gender an individual prefers is a valid reason to deny participation in this social construct.

After all, why should straight people be the ones to suffer the trials and tribulations of marriage?

And for those grown-ups who insist on having invisible friends, you can have your 'True Marriage', or whatever you wish to call it.
edit on 28-5-2013 by cuckooold because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Here is my two cents, and take it for that.

This whole parabola of a debate about whether or not same-sex couples have the right to marry is complete bollocks.

Some people think it is wrong to mix races, and that doing so and raising kids could cause them to spread outside their gene pool and cause the mutations in disease that we see today from combined disadvantages due to mixed races. It could be argued that a mixed-race couple could have a mate who is a different race as well? More differentiation in new DNA.

Now same sex-couples.

Then, some people see same sex-couples, and think that it is a sin against nature. Some take it further saying that if they had the right to marry that it would break the whole meaning of marriage. I say that's untrue; you marry someone because you love them, and you don't want to spend another day without them by your side. You are free to love whoever you wish.

Bottom line, the global population should just be more open-minded and realize that they can't run the entire world and other peoples lives according to their tastes and desires. Let people live theirs and confront your own for a change.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Hi Charles,

Firstly, the word pluralistic, simply means that as opposed there being only one way answer to a problem, there could be two or more. Specifically related to marriage, it would mean that heterosexual marriages retain all of the respect, dignity and religious recognition they deserve. What would change is that the word would also come to recognise that same sex marriages are given the same rights.

Personally, and this is just my own personal opinion here (I know that some gay people will disagree) I think that perhaps in a case like this tradition should be noted and churches and religious organisations could be given special legal protection to be able to say no to having to perform gay marriage ceremonies. Nothing would stop them from voluntarily having them, but I think the law should give them to say no based upon tradition. Religion and state are supposed to be separate anyway.

Secondly, my life story is far from unique. Some gay people have it easy because they grow up in open minded families, others have it tough because they do not. I know of a poor boy in NZ who grew up in a Muslim family. When he told them he was gay, he was beaten to within an inch of his life by his father and his brothers (was left in a coma for two weeks) then told if he comes anywhere near them again, he they would kill him. This never even went to court, because he was too scared to press charges against his own family.

It is strange, I really feel uncomfortable talking about being gay in the first person. Not because I am ashamed of it, but because I actually do worry about offending other people. I also do not want to draw attention or sympathy to myself because there are so many gay people I know out there that have it a lot worse than I do.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by markosity1973
 

Dear markosity1973,

I see you've added some additional thoughts to your post, let me look at it.

Secondly, all of those groups you have mentioned have either broken the law, or have avenues to gain rights through the citizenship process and pensioners gain benefits, not lose them.
All I was trying to do was show that government treats individuals differently, sometimes based on their behavior, sometimes based on their characteristics.

The rich pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the poor, and the blind have programs to help them run businesses in Federal buildings. Just about any unusual group gets treated differently. The Supreme Court tells us that discrimination based on behavior is more easily justified than discrimination based on characteristics. The only "right" a gay person doesn't have, as far as I know, is to get governmental recognition of a marriage between two people of the same sex. In the past, nobody had that "right." Changes are in store.

I understand that gays would like to have a government recognized marriage, but I see no basis for claiming it as a right. Especially not for claiming it as a Constitutional right.

With respect,
Charles1952


And on that point I concede. You are correct that the government does see fit to treat people differently based on all sorts of reasons.

So twisting that argument slightly, therefore if the government has already shown that it does not treat everyone the same, why when it comes to marriage does it obstinately argue that in this one case, everyone should be the same. i.e only people of opposite gender can marry?



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I don't believe there's anything scary about it. I have always thought it could be an attempt at population control though. Funny how all of these governments are not only bracing same sex marriage but they are promoting it too! They don't promote opposite sex marriage...



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


It sounds like you are insisting that . . .

when some folks take the train to Beijing

and others take the train to Hong Kong

we simply MUST DECLARE that they are both on the same train going to the same destination toward the same results and consequences.

How reasonable.
How sensible.
How erudite.
How educated.
How modern.
How clever.
How compassionate.

Aren't DAFFYNITION labels wonderful!

Globalists are soooooooo clever . . .

Infanticide is now Choice
Homosexual addictions are now joyously gay
Black is now white
up is now down

Children brought up in homes with revolving beds and parental partners are to be labeled as

WELL ADJUSTED by fiat.

After all . . . the MSM declares it as truth.
How can the propaganda mass brainwashers be wrong?

Please be sure to take your Soma.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


I don't know why you would even psot this last article as it goes completely against what you're trying to say...



Huggins (1989) studied 36 children who ranged in age from 13 to 19 years of age. Half of the children had lesbian mothers and half had heterosexual mothers. The major finding was that only one of these adolescents self-identified as homosexual and this particular youth was the child of one of the heteroexual mothers.


The entire essay is saying that heterosexual parenthood and homosexual parenthood produce the exact same results.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Everything you are talking about is equal propaganda, written by those that oppose Homosexuality, taking absurd myths and making them read as 'truth' research because of a title someone holds



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN

Infanticide is now Choice



You can't commit infanticide on what is not an infant yet.


Homosexual addictions are now joyously gay


More like colourless and normal


Black is now white


Or many shades of grey


up is now down

Only when your head is in your rear end



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   
furthermore,

i don't believe we are asking to be treated any different, we are not asking for higher privilege, just equal rights equality, you can't control my life as i can't control yours,

for all that talk about gay marriage being the downfall of 'Marriage' how many straight divorces are there? how many 'Married' couples cheat on each other? how many homes destroyed by 'Straight Marriages'?

NOH8



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
It fascinates my why this gets so many people riled up. The people who should be kicking up a fuss is us single people. You don't get any tax breaks or special treatment from your government for being single.

Surely the sanctimony of marriage went out the window, when you could get an Elvis impersonator to deliver the vows in Las Vegas, not to mention the high divorce rates.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


Don't forget the abandonned children that the superior heterosexuals orphanize, to be adopted by gay people who are then rideculed as being inept parents for giving them a home, love, and food.

One giant hypocritical facade of moral superiority and parental worth.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by markosity1973
 


It sounds like you are insisting that . . .

when some folks take the train to Beijing

and others take the train to Hong Kong

we simply MUST DECLARE that they are both on the same train going to the same destination toward the same results and consequences.



No, I am saying that they both on a train and both going somewhere. In this case they are both travelling within China (Hong Kong, now being an official part of China) The similarities are that they are travelling and that they are on a train. The difference in your example is the destination.



How reasonable.
How sensible.
How erudite.
How educated.
How modern.
How clever.
How compassionate.

Aren't DAFFYNITION labels wonderful!



So we have sunk to creating new words to vilify our opponents now have we?




Infanticide is now Choice


What does THAT have to do with gay marriage anyway? For the record, I personally am of the pro-life line of thinking. I would rather see a baby adopted out than aborted, but I am not the one living every unwanted pregnancy. I value life, very very much.



Homosexual addictions are now joyously gay


I'm gay and I have no idea what you mean. I am pretty sure you don't either.



Black is now white
up is now down


Perhaps you need to have your vision checked and have your inner ear checked as well.



Children brought up in homes with revolving beds and parental partners are to be labeled as
WELL ADJUSTED by fiat.


So cars are now performing adjustments on... US


Perhaps you mean that I suggest that I am of the belief that children from broken homes are well adjusted. Look at who these people are, most of them are S-T-R-A-I-G-H-T. Don't blame us homos for your own problems. And for the records, a person is identified as being well adjusted by their positive contribution to society. They have to earn it.



After all . . . the MSM declares it as truth.
How can the propaganda mass brainwashers be wrong?


Those brainwashers being over represented by clueless fundamentalists who would rather pedal their brand of hate than listen to reason.
edit on 28-5-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by darkbake
 


The gays could always adopt kids that would otherwise be aborted. But got it, that's what you were talking about.


FROM WHO???


If everyone was gay, from whom would they adopt?

Adoption is not reproduction! It's unsustainable (much like our government's spending habits)!





Awesome, we get to the point here. Not everyone would be gay. Only gays would be gay.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Nothing.Except they call it marriage.

You're gay? Do your thing. Stop telling me about it.

I weep for this world.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Iamschist
imho Nothing. Comments I have heard indicate it has something to do with what some feel is an attack on the institution of marriage as set forth in the Bible. Personally I can't see how, but these are the same people that get upset about women doing radical things like wearing pants, working outside the home, etc...
So its religious fear. They are afraid of going against what their bible says.

Pretty much what I figured. But it still doesnt really explain what is so scary about it...how it attacks the religious sanctity of marriage, etc.


I don't think this is true.
It's bigotry and nothing else. These are people who are obsessed with controlling other people and they use their religious book as a weapon to achieve it.

This is proven to me by several facts...

1. They argue that the Bible says it's wrong, and this is why they are against it, but the Bible also supports slavery, ownership and subjugation of women, restrictions on clothing, murder... so why focus on this one "religious tradition" and ignore the others that are too inconvenient for them?

2. They argue that the traditional Christian description of marriage is between a man and a woman, but they ignore the fact that marriage existed before Christianity, and their brand of religion has no copyright claim on this union, none at all. Christians do not own marriage.

3. They argue that gay marriage would undermine the sanctity of marriage, but they can never answer when you bring up divorce rates. This is especially fun when this excuse comes from a Christian who has been divorced!

4. The claim that marriage is for procreation, but they then ignore it when you raise the issue of sterile couples marrying. Surely if this is their excuse then they should also be refusing the right of those who cannot or choose not to have children to marry too? If this is their excuse then married couples who cannot biologically have children should be forced to divorce.

No matter what argument a Christian offers for being against same-sex marriage there is a retort to destroy their position. They have no argument.

These are the reasons why I don't think it has anything to do with fear at all, it comes back to people wanting to force their religious beliefs onto the society around them, just as the Taliban does, just as any religious extremist group does. We live in democratic societies, not religious dictatorships. Christianity has no place forcing their religious law on the rest of society.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   
In my humble opinion..

The act is not necessarily scary as you can pretty much marry a stone, but the political power behind it is scary and disgusting like feminism.

Get rid of that political power and marry with a fly… who cares!



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   
It is not scary. It's just stupid.

Sticking a penis up a rectum and that being the basis of what defines your relationship, is against all natural and evolutionary principles.

To then demand equal rights in marriage is the stupidity bit.


edit on 28-5-2013 by MadMax7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2013 by MadMax7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2013 by MadMax7 because: ats have a problem with the word penis????



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join