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.
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.
They can for example, get married, and get all of the advantages that brings.
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.
If you are against gay pride parades then it seems like you just want gay people to roll over and accept the homophobic behaviour.
This day and age, it hardly gets a second glance.
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.
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!
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.
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??
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?
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.
Promise you I have witnessed multiple occasions of disgusted faces and snickering merely because a gay couple was talking to each other.
L. Ron as the arbiter of 'Good'? Surely you jest!
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?
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
L. Ron as the arbiter of 'Good'? Surely you jest!
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?
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.
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.
Minority Birth Rate: Racial and Ethnic Minorities Surpass Whites In U.S. Births For First Time, Census Reports
Deaths among white Americans now outpace birth rate
Explaining Why Minority Births Now Outnumber White Births
You got this from one of my posts?
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:
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)
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.
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.