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.

 

The Flaw In Your Logic Regarding Homosexuality

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 



This is born out of the fact that gay people are not treated the same as straight people. Straight people, can, for example, hold hands without getting weird looks.


This day and age, it hardly gets a second glance.


They can for example, get married, and get all of the advantages that brings.


With the recent Supreme Court ruling, this is just around the corner. For many employers and benefit providers, it is already a reality (i.e. the advantages of being a spouse or partner).


Gay pride has nothing to do with turning people gay, saying gay people are better than straight people, or by trying to be perverse as possible in public.


2 out ot 3 ain't bad. On the third point though, have you ever BEEN to a gay pride parade? Most certainly ARE about being as perverse as possible in public. (or at least certain elements in the parade make it about this). I'd post some pics as evidence, but they'd violate the Terms & Conditions, no doubt.


If you are against gay pride parades then it seems like you just want gay people to roll over and accept the homophobic behaviour.


You realize this is a textbook logical fallacy, right? (in a thread about flawed logic) You have no idea why someone may be against such parades. (for example, they may be against parades in general).

Personally, I think such parades just reinforce the "I'm different, look at me!" mentality that is the basis for the discrimination in the first place. If you want to meld in, meld in. Shouting those differences from the rooftops is self-defeating. Just accept everyone as PEOPLE vs. other labels, and we'll all be just fine...no parades needed. I have probably just as many gay/lesbian/bi friends and relatives as I do straight ones, and I can't recall any wanting to be in such a parade.




posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 



This day and age, it hardly gets a second glance.


Oh I think that's a stretch!

No doubt it varies from place to place. State to state.

Mere fact every thread has people barking about how it's a disease and an abomination should be a tell-tale sign there are people that will take notice of any gay affection and do more than glance.

Promise you I have witnessed multiple occasions of disgusted faces and snickering merely because a gay couple was talking to each other.

This day and age it still very much happens. You're right though in this day and age it's certainly getting better.
edit on 2-7-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by LUXUS
There is a sadness that surrounds homosexuality, ask any gay person who is at the age where others have had or are having children about family and you will see sadness come across their face because they know their genetic line ends with them!
It certainty doesn't have to...I know a gay couple with two beautiful kids courtesy of their DNA and a host mom. If there is a sadness around homosexuality, it is the grief they take from homophobes. Bless Canada for officially not giving a hoot.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by seabag
 


Then let people be people.

why do we reduce what people do to their activity in their crotch?

I have seen flamboyant straight men.

Your linking sexuality to behavior is, while often accurate, not exclusive.


This is a very fair point. I'm definitely heterosexual, however I can be a little bit flamboyant at times. Not crazy, in your face, but still enough to make a lot of guys feel uncomfortable or even dislike me based on their assumption that I'm gay.

It used to bother me, but I am who I am



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


How about beastiality, necro sex and pedos?? naturally occuring..

how about marriage to inanimate objects??

people have some very close relationships with pets.... some see them as children.. or a friend.. is it okay to see them as a potential life partner??

I could argue that wanting to marry same sex is retarded as they cannot procreate. science can bridge that.

what if science could bridge marriage with animals...what if science can allow for different species to procreate??

at what point do we draw the line on these things.

what next?? will we have people campaigning about how pedos have been shunned for such a long time?? are we going to have pedo parades?? beastiality parades?


they are sexual disorder. no matter how you slice it.

If homosexualism is all fine and dandy and natural normal whatever.. then that opens the discussion to other abnormal sexual behavior.

do you really want to be having this discussion about pedos and beastility in the future??


You know, that's a really interesting point. I started reading your post and as soon as I saw beastiality, I instantly thought "this has no position in this discussion". But it actually does.

Biologically I guess we are all straight (or meant to be according to our genetic code), but some are born with slightly different brains, which means that they are in to animals, cars, pets,children, and others of the same sex. I genuinely think people should be allowed to live their lives however they wish, but i think you raise a very interesting point in calling homosexuality a sexual disorder.

Gay people marrying is fine by me, if they want that. Personally I see marriage as a religious ceremony and, as a person who has no religion, I won't be having a Minister/Priest marrying me and my future mrs. I don't understand why gay people wouldn't want their own kind of ceremony that's unique to them, and not desinged or put in place by an organisation that hates them.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by network dude
 



Flamboyancy....why is it offensive? I mean, i get the "yuck" factor of public affection (i don't do public affection with my wife). But to be flamboyant?

Why can someone not be themselves? Is that not what we are here to do?


That's just it. Why not be yourself, instead of adopting the flamboyant flaming persona. Maybe I am jaded. I know a few people who came out in the last few years. All three talked and acted normal. (normal being not flaming) now that they came out and the news is all about this subject, they do the damn snaps, head bobs, sound like a steam leak, and just outright on fire. I know they weren't like that before. It just irritates me because they were easy to get along with before. We could communicate as equals, but when the gayness is at level 10, I get yucked out and don't want to be near it.

I just don't' think that is being yourself, that' trying to be like someone else.

I do concede that normal is just a setting on the dryer.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ifeelsohigh
 





Why do gays and other "minorities" have to throw it in our faces all the damn time? I'm so sick of the gays and blacks and hispanics and native americans and everybody bitching all the damn time.


Maybe if you opened your eyes and mind you would see why they are bitching all the time. It's because a majority of the time they are treated like second class citizens.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
One of the things that old L. Ron Hubbard had a pretty good definition for was "Good". Good was "that which tends to increase the survival of the individual, the family, the nation, and the species."

By this definition, Homosexuality can not be Good.

Currently, the white race is not breeding at replacement value. If even a third of the race became Homosexual through the manipulation of the Media, the Educational System, and the Welfare state, the race would cease to exist within about 15 generations.

It is an Evil thing, being taught as Good. There is a prophecy regarding such for the Last Days, isn't there?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



Promise you I have witnessed multiple occasions of disgusted faces and snickering merely because a gay couple was talking to each other.


And a bunch of guys parading with assless chaps and boas is going to change that? Or just reinforce it?

This kind of thing still happens when some (though very few) folks see a mixed race couple too. What's your answer? To govern how these people think? They are allowed to have their opinions, even if they are bigoted. A parade isn't going to change it.

Society is changing and accepting. It won't be overnight, but it is inevitable. (and yet there will always be those few remaining bigots too, but you have to afford them the same right to disagree).



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
One of the things that old L. Ron Hubbard had a pretty good definition for was "Good". Good was "that which tends to increase the survival of the individual, the family, the nation, and the species."

By this definition, Homosexuality can not be Good.

Currently, the white race is not breeding at replacement value. If even a third of the race became Homosexual through the manipulation of the Media, the Educational System, and the Welfare state, the race would cease to exist within about 15 generations.

It is an Evil thing, being taught as Good. There is a prophecy regarding such for the Last Days, isn't there?
L. Ron as the arbiter of 'Good'? Surely you jest!

Further, folks don't 'become' homosexual'...and you can't catch the queer cooties, so it's not like a gay apocalypse is threatening you.

Lastly...the future is brown...get over it.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by C0bzz
 





A human having sex with an animal isn't the same as two consenting adults of age.


What about the animals who do consent by their actions.


Are you suggesting that animals of the same species shouldn't have sex with each other? Your logic is so easy to defeat, I'm almost ashamed at myself for even responding to you.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 



And a bunch of guys parading with assless chaps and boas is going to change that? Or just reinforce it?

You got this from one of my posts?


This kind of thing still happens when some (though very few) folks see a mixed race couple too. What's your answer? To govern how these people think?


I was responding to the idea in doesn't really happen 'in this day and age'. That is all. It does and it's an indicator there is something wrong with those thoughts people have. People throw around the word "force" way way too loosely. My answer would be to bring awareness and have discussions. To some that is "shoving down ones throat" and therefore constitutes "force". That's all the 'governing' I would condone.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
Gay people marrying is fine by me, if they want that. Personally I see marriage as a religious ceremony and, as a person who has no religion, I won't be having a Minister/Priest marrying me and my future mrs. I don't understand why gay people wouldn't want their own kind of ceremony that's unique to them, and not desinged or put in place by an organisation that hates them.


That's just because so it would appear homosexual and heterosexual marriages are equal and so of a similar worth to suggest same gender love is equal to opposite gender love. If everyone believes in that lie then it won't be a lie anymore and everyone would believe it's something true so the homosexual person doesn't have to go around convincing people their love is just as true.

If homosexuals had a different kind of marriage they would indirectly admit their version is not equal to the Church' version and then people have to figure out whether the Church version is better or the homosexual version and I'm pretty sure the Church would win. And so that movement might claim something, as if the work of billions of ancestors who married eachother for centuries and shaped marriage and it's meaning to what it is today, that is the meaning they would want to have for themselves even if it isn't suited imho.

Everybody should have equal rights, it's not about that, but I believe a different marriage is a better solution, one they can shape for themselves.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
One of the things that old L. Ron Hubbard had a pretty good definition for was "Good". Good was "that which tends to increase the survival of the individual, the family, the nation, and the species."

By this definition, Homosexuality can not be Good.

Currently, the white race is not breeding at replacement value. If even a third of the race became Homosexual through the manipulation of the Media, the Educational System, and the Welfare state, the race would cease to exist within about 15 generations.

It is an Evil thing, being taught as Good. There is a prophecy regarding such for the Last Days, isn't there?
L. Ron as the arbiter of 'Good'? Surely you jest!

Further, folks don't 'become' homosexual'...and you can't catch the queer cooties, so it's not like a gay apocalypse is threatening you.

Lastly...the future is brown...get over it.


That's a definition of survival, not moral good... wouldn't rape be considered good by your ridiculous definition? It keeps the species going, after all.

P.S. L. Ron Hubbard is a known pedophile, and he had several mental ailments. You're taking your morality from an insane conman, literally. And no, I won't apologize. Those beliefs are not legitimate.

(referring to MuzzleBreak's post. I replied to Johnny because I wanted to add to his comment)
edit on 2-7-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 



Currently, the white race is not breeding at replacement value. If even a third of the race became Homosexual through the manipulation of the Media, the Educational System, and the Welfare state, the race would cease to exist within about 15 generations.


Do you really think those institutions can MAKE someone a homosexual who doesn't already have that inkling? My brother and I had the same upbringing, same media exposure, same education...and yet he's gay, and watching Brokeback Mountain would make me want to vomit. I have quite a few gay friends, but prefer not to think about what they do behind closed doors. They are friends because they are good people. Could care less about what they do at home.

I agree that the white race is going the way of the dodo though...but to be honest, it is what it is. I don't have any kind of weird loyalty to race. We humans are still around, so that's all cool. I think your timeline is a bit pressing though. I think we will definitely be a minority in 15 years or more.

Just look at these headlines....


Minority Birth Rate: Racial and Ethnic Minorities Surpass Whites In U.S. Births For First Time, Census Reports

www.huffingtonpost.com...


Deaths among white Americans now outpace birth rate

dailycaller.com...


Explaining Why Minority Births Now Outnumber White Births

www.pewsocialtrends.org...

It is inevitable. We will eventually be extinct, and humans will be all so intermixed that there won't be a white "race" or even a black "race" or hispanic "race" or "oriental" race. But, we're just now being ousted from majority status (in America), so will be a bit longer I think before extinction.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



You got this from one of my posts?


No, from images from gay pride parades. My point is that such parades do nothing to foster understanding or acceptance. Instead, they reinforce the differences, and only reinforce the convictions of those who disapprove of their lifestyle. They are self-defeating.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Some results of studies regarding male homosexuality and absent or distant fathers can be found here:
fathersforlife.org...


In part to test the Bieber conclusions, Apperson and McAdoo compared 23 non-patient homosexuals and 22 members of the US army. Their conclusion:

The results of this study strongly support the theoretical formations of Bieber et al., in considering homosexuality as primarily related to specific experiential factors. The importance of the relationship -- or lack of it --with the father is again emphasized with the homosexual S[ubject]s showing marked difference from the controls in perceiving the father more as critical, impatient, and rejecting, and less as the socializing agent. (Apperson, 1968)

Snortum, et al., conducted tests on 46 males being evaluated for separation from the military because of homosexual incidents and 89 controls. Their conclusion: "It appears that the family dynamics for homosexual patients described by Bieber, et al. were confirmed in toto." (Snortum, 1969)

Thompson, et al.,(1973) queried 127 white homosexual males and 123 matched heterosexual controls and found that the homosexuals were more likely to report that they spent very little time with their fathers. The authors concluded that weak and/or hostile fathers played a prominent role in the etiology of homosexuality.

A study by Stephan, et al., compared 88 activist male homosexuals with 105 male heterosexuals and found that: "On no variable did the homosexuals evaluate their fathers favorably." Stephan concluded:

The majority of the homosexuals did not appear to have positive male models to identify with as children, and as a consequences they may have identified with females. This process was probably facilitated by the fact that normative masculine role behavior was not encouraged strongly by either parent. (Stephan, 1973)

In a 1979 article Irving and Toby Bieber reported that in their evaluations of over 1,000 male homosexuals, they did not find one "whose father openly loved and respected him." (Bieber, 1979)

Other studies reported similar findings. Sherman (1985) found that homosexual sons "perceived their relationship with their fathers as distant, negative, and conflicted." Saghir and Robins conducted extensive interviews with 86 homosexual men and 35 single heterosexual controls, the results of which they published in a book length report Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation (1973).Men with a history of psychiatric problems or incarceration were eliminated from the sample. According to their report:

In over one-half of the homosexuals the parental home during their childhood is marked by intense discord and fighting. The role of the father at home seems to be conspicuous by its absence. In a surprising 84% of the homosexuals, the father is described as indifferent and uninvolved at home, particularly with the homosexual son, and in a similar proportion the homosexuals describe their childhood relationship with their fathers as unsatisfactory. (Saghir, p.152)

Only 13% of the homosexuals (vs 66% of the controls) reported identifying with their fathers in childhood and only 18% of the homosexual men felt that their overall relationship with their fathers in childhood was a satisfactory one in contrast to 82% of the heterosexuals. (Saghir, pp.144, 145) The personal comments by the homosexual respondents confirmed the negative father/son relationship:



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by slowisfast
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


Comparing homosexuality to the struggles of people of color is the most intellectually dishonest position a person can take on the matter. It's an insult. Ones sexuality is an innately private matter, unlike the color of ones skin, and the nature of ones sexuality is only known to that person and the people they choose to share it with.

Stop comparing gay rights to the civil rights movement, every time you do, you do people like Dr. King and Rosa Parks a great disservice.
edit on 1-7-2013 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)


The only problem with YOUR logic is that you think homosexuality is about sex.
This is very much a civil rights movement, completely comparable to the movements of skin color.
These are both people who are born a certain way and were outcasts of society and both are fighting for equal rights and protections. Period.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



You got this from one of my posts?


No, from images from gay pride parades. My point is that such parades do nothing to foster understanding or acceptance. Instead, they reinforce the differences, and only reinforce the convictions of those who disapprove of their lifestyle. They are self-defeating.


I never walked away from a sports related parade, or a Halloween parade with a greater understanding or acceptance of what the parade was being held for. Have you? Do you watch Thanksgiving Day parades with the hope of gaining a greater understanding? I doubt it. It's merely a celebration. It doesn't need to give YOU a better understanding. It is their time to show their pride in who they are. Get over yourself
edit on 2-7-2013 by MrPlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



You got this from one of my posts?


No, from images from gay pride parades. My point is that such parades do nothing to foster understanding or acceptance. Instead, they reinforce the differences, and only reinforce the convictions of those who disapprove of their lifestyle. They are self-defeating.


Right. Just like St. Paddy's day parades don't foster acceptance for the Irish or Catholics. Instead, they reinforce a sense of cultural heritage within those specific communities, and only reinforce the convictions of those who disapprove of their culture and behaviors.

The term "self-defeating" is pretty much pointless, as there is no sole purpose or goal to the gay pride parade.

This is tantamount to saying "orthodox jews who abstain from eating pork just reinforce negative stereotypes." What's your point? They aren't doing it for you, and the whole world isn't obliged to do things which you personally enjoy all of the time.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join