Gay community fears new era of intolerance

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 01:30 AM
link   


Homosexuals have no rights as homosexuals. They never have had them, and they never will, although one day congress may created "rights" for them.

Homosexuals have the same rights as human beings as the rest of us. As this is a Christian nation, however, the idea of the majority of the citizenry wanting their culture and society further degraded and weakened by such ideas. There is no conspiracy against the "homosexual", unless you count the attempts to twart the left-wing conspiracy a conspiracy in itself. I'm sure many here do believe that. Funny how the adherence to the ethics and morals that have been with this nation since its foundation is not a conspiracy of some sort, and one can reasonably account the 11 states' amendments protecting family values and marriage to the Mass ruling for civil unions, which is the counterculture move, traditional morals is acounted for as "homosexual-baiting". This is laughable. What you are seeing is the proper response on the attack of traditional family values, and you can thank the attack for the election day turnout that kept Bush in office.


As Hetrosexuals have no rights as Hetrosexuals; one day, during the Enlightenmeny era, men dicided to creat 'rights' for them.

What's your point?

I'm sorry TC, but as much as you would like to know that America is a Christian Theocracy, sadly, it was created to be a nation of secularism; you can take your religious ideologies somwhere else, i would perfer in the sancticy of your own home, heart, and Church; the White house is not a choice.

Can you please elaborate further on 'why' homosexuals are deleterious to society. To often or not we see members tout this notion, yet never back it up with emperical data.

I'm quite sure your entire argument was the basis of the counter movement against Interraical marriages and Equal rights for non-whites...

Deep




posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
First, you must understand that your assumption that my assumption that this nation is a Christian theocracy is incorrect. It never has been, nor will it ever be a theocracy, not as long as our guiding documentation is as it is. If you care to do a bit of research on your own, you will learn how the country was built. If you do not wish to go to that trouble, I have written a few long-winded dissertations on that topic here at this board. I have no desire to repeat the class everytime another person comes along and asks the same question again. I'm sure you can find it if you do a search or something. I wish I could help you on that, but I have never been able to use the ATS search engine successfully! Call me a techno-failure if you'd like. That's probably why I prefer books for my learning. That, and I trust them more.

As far as the liberal agenda harming our culture and society, I have 60 years of evidence that points to that conclusion. The fact of the matter is, several and colliding social concepts cannot survive in the same culture and that culture stay healthy. That is paradoxial to the idea of a society, and eventually, the nation and its current government will collapse. As far as eroding morals and the degredation of a society is concerned, history has many examples of just that. Read about them and then decide for yourself if we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of history or if we will be the first to defy history while at the same time doing the same thing.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Beergoggles says,


They have good reason to be worried. Their situation will not be getting better anythime soon.
Do you think they need to worry because gay marriage wont be legalized legalized soon, and you think this will lead to increased repression and restrictive laws against gays?
I cant see that happening.

Ocelot says the Administration is,


hell bent on dennying gay people their rights
Please explain to us how marriage is a right.
Why is it not just one more special interest minority group, (with entitlments) made up of one man and one woman, just like many others?
How is this right defined, and then what would be a civil violation of said right?
How can the government gaurentee anyone a spouce?
Wouldnt married people have "more" rights than non married/divorced people? Wouldnt this make marriage a "more desirable" place in the society?

See you asks,


Why does anyone have a problem with this?
Certantly with 11000 things that gay marriage would affect, (according to this thread....www.abovetopsecret.com... and NO examinations/discussions about these interactions...there is NO WAY anyone can say that harm is not/would not be caused.
Why cant we finnish looking at what real things are going to be affected and how, before enacting a feel good piece of legislation?
When more discussion than a wish list and devicive reverse bigotry comes from the side needing to build a concensus becomes apparent, perhaps the socio/political #'s will swing enough to build a majority.

Marge says,


I am afraid of hate crimes.
Yeah? me too! Im affraid that someone has more legal protections than i do because of devisive, discrimanitory criteria. legally In essence, killing me will get you less time than killing a gay person...taking my life is less punnishable than killing a gay person???? Remember this example the next time im reminding readers that discrimination is legal in many forms here....



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   
As far as where you'd prefer I take my religious ideologues, I am really unconcerned. Were you to actually know my nation's foundation and heritage as I do, you'd know that what you are twlling me to do is worth zero cents in this country. I know nothing of your government and nation, but I do know quite a bit about mine. You, sir, are very incorrect about mine.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Please explain to us how marriage is a right.
Why is it not just one more special interest minority group, (with entitlments) made up of one man and one woman, just like many others?
How is this right defined, and then what would be a civil violation of said right?
How can the government gaurentee anyone a spouce?
Wouldnt married people have "more" rights than non married/divorced people? Wouldnt this make marriage a "more desirable" place in the society?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 02:01 AM
link   
No offence durden, but i already knew your take on these questions...
i understand their inclusion in this thread so that new readers will get your take,
BUT
i really want to hear Ocelots version of answers to those questions.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
No offence durden, but i already knew your take on these questions...

None taken.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 02:17 AM
link   


As far as the liberal agenda harming our culture and society, I have 60 years of evidence that points to that conclusion. The fact of the matter is, several and colliding social concepts cannot survive in the same culture and that culture stay healthy. That is paradoxial to the idea of a society, and eventually, the nation and its current government will collapse. As far as eroding morals and the degredation of a society is concerned, history has many examples of just that. Read about them and then decide for yourself if we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of history or if we will be the first to defy history while at the same time doing the same thing.


Liberal agenda? Who is speaking about a liberal agenda? We are speaking about granting homosexuals the same rights, same 'conventional' rights, that have been entailed to hetrosexuals. This 'conservative' agenda is just as deleterious and contradictory to all that American stands for; for a country that is lauded the world over as a sociopoitical superpower that touts pluralism and secularism as it's number one quota --Bush's constant rambling-- it is quite ironic that this very same country would let a simply religious phobia (of which any able scholar could chide) supersede their rational.

Anthropologicaly speaking, history is rampant with societies that allowed homosexuality an equal share and, as it were, i don't see how to 'defy' history is to ban homosexuals equal rights; in fact, we defied history when we freed the slaves; we defied history when we gave those slaved equal rights and allowed them to marry non-blacks; we defied history when we joined the fight against Nazism;We defied history when we have women equal rights; but, we have not defied history by not allowing equal rights to homosexuals.






As far as where you'd prefer I take my religious ideologues, I am really unconcerned. Were you to actually know my nation's foundation and heritage as I do, you'd know that what you are twlling me to do is worth zero cents in this country. I know nothing of your government and nation, but I do know quite a bit about mine. You, sir, are very incorrect about mine.



You make the assumption that i'am ignorant to American politics and it's revolving history; we forget ourselves, this is a site to learn about this very thing and interact with a vast majority of members from the world over.

Plus, i am taking a political sciences class; America's constitution will be a topic of articulation soon enough.

Christianity is more atrophic to society, than, per sa, homosexuality; you can take a glance through the history books for that proof.

I still want to know how homosexuality is deleterious, if not:utterly pernicious to society.

Deep



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Well, I'm proud you are taking a poli-sci class, Zero! Fun class. Don't think it'll compare to years of personal study. I took a couple of accounting classes but my neice still knows a lot more than I do! LOL!

Inthis nation, it is recognized that our rights are given to us by the Creator, who is understood to be the God of Abraham. Because these rights are by him and not the government, they are unalienable. That protects our nation from the government trying to usurp our rights as they do not have the authority to do so.

AS this nation is a Christian nation, it is clearlyu understood what is right and not right, proper and improper, a sin and not a sin. This has been the guide for the nation since its birth. Down through the years, our nation has evolved, and evolved for the better. Ending slavery, for example, was a good thing. In doing so, however, we did not take something that is clearly wrong and make it acceptable. Freeing a group of humans is not an abomination, nor is it something that will degrade the nation, the culture.

The harm that will happen to the nation is moral harm. This is another step to an anything goes degeneration that will eventually lead to a nation that is so corrupt, so rotted, that it will not have the spirit or strength to defend itself from within or without.

Who is talking about the liberal conspiracy? I am, and so are you. This particular topic is part of the battle plan to destroy the nation, and after the nation is destroyed, the government will be corrupted or taken over as well.

Now, Zero, if you guys up there have a desire to go down that path, it is all up to you. I don't feel I have the right to tell you guys what is right and what is not. You'll have to go for what you know and whatever the outcome is, take it.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Zero talks about rights,


We are speaking about granting homosexuals the same rights, same 'conventional' rights, that have been entailed to hetrosexuals.
From only 4 posts ago, you conveniantly AVOID attempts at answers to questions i posed to Ocelot....please Zero, lets hear your answers to the following,


Please explain to us how marriage is a right.
Why is it not just one more special interest minority group, (with entitlments) made up of one man and one woman, just like many others?
How is this right defined, and then what would be a civil violation of said right?
How can the government gaurentee anyone a spouce?
Wouldnt married people have "more" rights than non married/divorced people? Wouldnt this make marriage a "more desirable" place in the society?


Zero says,


Anthropologicaly speaking, history is rampant with societies that allowed homosexuality an equal share and, as it were,
Indeed there is historical evidence cultures acknowloging homosexuality, but what were talking about here is MORE than just a casual acceptance of gays by a culture, were talking about the culture institutionizing these ideals into laws, and entitlements, and the overall cultural identity....Where in history has this occured?

Zero seeks understanding,


I still want to know how homosexuality is deleterious, if not:utterly pernicious to society.
It is really irrelavent if it harms or hurts society. Were talking about the rights of a democratic majority to determine which "morals" it wants to use to represent the culture with, create a cultural identity, and pass along as a heritage.

I will say AGAIN for the third time in this thread that NO SERIOUS examinations of these 11000 things that gay marriage would effect according to this thread have even been looked at yet.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
With no serious look at legal, cultural, and other rammifications of this subject....how informed is anyone when they claim that "harm" is/is not being done to the culture by this issue?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Oh boo hoo.

The day the gays took their bedroom antics into the public realm is the day it started.

I'm sick and tired of the gays trying to claim equal rights when in fact there is so much prejudism in the gay community it is unbelievable.

Take your crap back to the bedroom and people will still accept who you are.

Personally, I don't judge people at all - whether you want to stick your di(k into the "normal place", an a$$hole or a pie, I really don't care - just don't tell me the type of person you are so that I KNOW where you actually put it.

It's not natural - once you accept that fact, it'll be easier to live.

BTW, the gay community has MORE THAN ENOUGH equality in the media and the fashion industry:

Who leads the fashion industry? The gays.

Who dominates the "creative" side of the media? The gays.

If you look at the history of gay accecptance, it's only when the gays started to produce movies (ie the director was gay) is when the "gay theme" came out.

Get a lif you bunch of p00-jabbers!

BTW, personally I'd like to have the original "gay" name back please, Gay USED to mean happy...from what I know, a lot of gays are a buch of miserable people, always wanting "equal rights".

What a joke!



[edit on 8-11-2004 by astoreth]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Isn't that from a movie. Sounds like "As Good As it Gets" with Jack Nicholson.


Man, you were reading my mind..I thought that same thing immediately.

Lady V, Jack was not the Gay person (greg Kinnear)..His neighbor was. His neighbor also had a little dog, which Jack threw down the garbage chute, at one point.


Also, to stay on topic...Have any rights been recently taken away from the Gay community?
Have any rights been recently gained by the gay community?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by astoreth
The day the gays took their bedroom antics into the public realm is the day it started.

Or rather, the day they got sick of having to keep their preference in the closet for the fear of being attacked.


Take your crap back to the bedroom and people will still accept who you are.

Tell me, do you feel a gay couple wanting to join in matrimony is also an invitation for you to join them in their bedroom?



Personally, I don't judge people at all - whether you want to stick your di(k into the "normal place", an a$$hole or a pie, I really don't care - just don't tell me the type of person you are so that I KNOW where you actually put it.

You seriously need to deal with your own issues in this case...



It's not natural - once you accept that fact, it'll be easier to live.

Hmm.. yeah, that logic makes a lot of sense...



BTW, the gay community has MORE THAN ENOUGH equality in the media and the fashion industry:

Who leads the fashion industry? The gays.

Who dominates the "creative" side of the media? The gays.

If you look at the history of gay accecptance, it's only when the gays started to produce movies (ie the director was gay) is when the "gay theme" came out.

Man, they're all over the place - it's just not fair!



Get a lif you bunch of p00-jabbers!

Get a life and a vocabulary, astoreth.



from what I know, a lot of gays are a buch of miserable people, always wanting "equal rights".

Yeah. Amazing, isn't it?



What a joke!

I should have known. Your whole post was actually a joke. My bad.




[edit on 8-11-2004 by Durden]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 05:02 AM
link   
What I don't understand is how gay marriage makes a country "weak"?!

Weak in what aspect?

So, you allow 0,001% of americans who already live together to legalize their life together. How does that make society weaker and more vulnerable to your "enemies"?
That doesn't make sense.

Are you affraid you won't be able to go to war the next time Bush, Rummy &Co take their guns and say yee-haw?

Are terrorists going to bomb you because of gay marriage?

By legalizing gay marriage, is your right to have a heterosexual marriage taken away? Are you not allowed to go to church anymore?

How EXACTLY, practicaly, factualy, IN REAL LIFE, is your life affected by gay marriage?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Please explain to us how marriage is a right.
Why is it not just one more special interest minority group, (with entitlments) made up of one man and one woman, just like many others?
How is this right defined, and then what would be a civil violation of said right?
How can the government gaurentee anyone a spouce?
Wouldnt married people have "more" rights than non married/divorced people? Wouldnt this make marriage a "more desirable" place in the society?


I wouldn't say marriage is a "right" per se, but if gay people want the right to have equal protection of the law under marriage then they should have it. If marriage if what you have a problem with then ok lets call it "civil unions". Gay couples should have the same rights as straight people in this respect. And no the government cannot guarantee anyone a spouce.... where the hell did you get this idea anyways? I never said it was the governments job to find anyone a spouce. And no married people don't have more rights than people who are not married, thats not what I said. I hope I answered your questions, if you have any more just ask.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   


Well, I'm proud you are taking a poli-sci class, Zero! Fun class. Don't think it'll compare to years of personal study. I took a couple of accounting classes but my neice still knows a lot more than I do! LOL!


Why thank you. It is a fun class; my proff is cool too !





Inthis nation, it is recognized that our rights are given to us by the Creator, who is understood to be the God of Abraham. Because these rights are by him and not the government, they are unalienable. That protects our nation from the government trying to usurp our rights as they do not have the authority to do so.

AS this nation is a Christian nation, it is clearlyu understood what is right and not right, proper and improper, a sin and not a sin. This has been the guide for the nation since its birth. Down through the years, our nation has evolved, and evolved for the better. Ending slavery, for example, was a good thing. In doing so, however, we did not take something that is clearly wrong and make it acceptable. Freeing a group of humans is not an abomination, nor is it something that will degrade the nation, the culture


Now, either you are confused and contradicting your earlier statement -- " First, you must understand that your assumption that my assumption that this nation is a Christian theocracy is incorrect. It never has been, nor will it ever be a theocracy, not as long as our guiding documentation is as it is".--, or insinuating a false notion that God is the devine prescriber of 'rights' in America.

Now, the dictionary definition of a theocracy stands as folllows:
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy

Remember, America may be a 'Nation one under God', but that does not insinuate God being the 'bearer of laws, rights, freedoms and liberties' in America; these are but conventional accords 'written by man' for man during the the Age of Enlightenment, and synthesized under 'rational' and 'reason', not the spurious," God is the measure of man". Those 'rights' given by 'God' were chided for thier undecency towards wo/men, as this is quite evident in the treatment towards non-christians for centuries under a Christian rule and it's inability to progress, not only society, but the mental progress of man: we also see this quite well in the current train of thought amongst mainstream fundamentalist Christians who are proponents of "Creationism", "non-secularism", and whatever else those naysayers of reason and subordinates of conceptual habitution can fathom.

God of Abraham you say ? Pray tell that it is not the same xenophobic clan God YAWEH, a jelous and often angered anthromorphic diety demanding utter obedience by it's subjects and an outright onerous attitude towards other cults and followings usualy regurgitated in a contradictory manner with dubious authenticity ? The very same God that commands those naysayers to the pits of hell; the very same God that maxim dictates the death of innocent children, women, and depending on the writer, the rape of these very people...

Exodus:20:5 - Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Now, can you give me a praxiological discourse as per, 'sin' ? Christianity is not the sole prescriber of morals, ethics, and values in the west; these are 'relative', and, as we can tell, relativism manifests itselft in the pluralist society of America quite well: From Sikhs, Hindu's, Buddhists, Orthodox Christians, Aborginals, to the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and all the way to our good Russian freinds, Germans, Pols, Chezs, we see a clash of cultures and values that are subject to thier original enviroments. Each of these peoples make America, not just Christians...




The harm that will happen to the nation is moral harm. This is another step to an anything goes degeneration that will eventually lead to a nation that is so corrupt, so rotted, that it will not have the spirit or strength to defend itself from within or without.

Who is talking about the liberal conspiracy? I am, and so are you. This particular topic is part of the battle plan to destroy the nation, and after the nation is destroyed, the government will be corrupted or taken over as well.


Once again, morals are relative; BUT, the uniform moral of America is that off acceptance regardless of caste, creed, sex, race, etc....

How is homosexuality going to lead to the 'already corrupt, so rotted' society it already is ?

Let's take a look back at time shall we:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953

To the current fiasco of the last 5 idiot presidents who have readily decreased social services in favour of military endevours, and ever coerced the United nations to, "Thank the United States for its contributions", lower its obligations, "and publicy report to all member nations how much the United States has spent supporting security council resolutions since Jan. 1, 1990." Now we all know how much money America owes to the UN; we all know how many times America has used the power of Veto every time it breaks a human rights violations -- just about on a regular basis; everytime Isreal breaks human rights violations, it's vetoed by America --biggest breaker of human rights in the world mind you; and, well, we can also throw in Geneva, treaties with out countries....

For a country were one in 4 children starve; for a country who re-elected an idiot again; for a country that justifies war under false pretexts; for a country that has commited the most human rights violations the world has seen, you sure are ignorant...

Deep




[edit on 8-11-2004 by ZeroDeep]





top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant