Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

5% of the Population is Gay...Will Gay People ever stop pushing their Agenda?

page: 4
46
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

SgtHamsandwich
reply to post by beezzer
 


Ok, I'm not the smartest feller and I don't claim to be. Maybe "civil" is not the right context that I'm shooting for. What I'm trying to get at is that in most states, gays are not allowed to enter a legal marriage under state and federal laws that straight people can. They are denied this because of their sexual orientation and that is not right IMHO.

I apologize and should be more careful when posting in a public forum in a heated haste.


S'okay.

But remember, the 10th Amendment is pretty much alive and well. If the people of that state wish to adhere to the religious interpretation of marriage, then it is their right to do so.




posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

EllaMarina
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I like your idea. I'm curious though-- exactly how would the classification of marriage as a religious practice be enforced?


Simple. If you paid to get married in a church, but not to get a civil union certification, your relationship would not be acknowledged in the eyes of the government.
edit on 20-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphanApology
 





Okay I am not understanding this whole idea that there is a gay agenda.


Wow, we are far apart.

If you can't even acknowledge that there is a Gay Agenda.

You really are not being honest with anybody.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

g146541
Why not have a straight pride parade?
2nd.

Pretty sure that's called Mardi Gras


Anyhow, what exactly is the "gay agenda"? I hear about it often, but as far as what I have seen, it is ultimately the agenda of not being attacked or persecuted for their orientation..which seems fairly reasonable.
I don't really understand the gay mindset, and I don't have to, I do understand they are humans like anyone else and should be treated equally as anyone else, their beliefs, preferences, and whatever else respected. If they want to have some sort of festival, or vegetatarians, or redheads, or any other group, classification, unification, or whatever else..then let them. If we can tolerate as a society the KKK having their parades, we can surely not flip out on anything else.

Respect the law, respect equality, and all is fine...no agenda necessary.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

whyamIhere
reply to post by OrphanApology
 





Okay I am not understanding this whole idea that there is a gay agenda.


Wow, we are far apart.

If you can't even acknowledge that there is a Gay Agenda.

You really are not being honest with anybody.




posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Very Funny...

But minding your own business goes both ways.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   

SaturnFX

Respect the law, respect equality, and all is fine...no agenda necessary.


You mean the law that prohibits two men from marrying?

Or what?



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   

TheWrightWing

SaturnFX

Respect the law, respect equality, and all is fine...no agenda necessary.


You mean the law that prohibits two men from marrying?

Or what?


Or the law that prohibits women from getting their hair cut without express permission from their spouse.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
An agenda would suggest goals. Can you at least name 5 goals of the gay agenda?or just 2.
edit on 20-12-2013 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


Get real 5%.... more like 1 in 1000 I'd say at most. I seriously doubt there's that many.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

woodwardjnr
An agenda would suggest goals. Can you at least name 5 goals of the gay agenda?or just 2.
edit on 20-12-2013 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)





It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called After the Ball, where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame.... They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly.[11] In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit: Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible(...) Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers(...) Give homosexual protectors a just cause(...) Make gays look good(...) Make the victimizers look bad(...) Get funds from corporate America(...)[12]


Here are six...

In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit: Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible(...) Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers(...) Give homosexual protectors a just cause(...) Make gays look good(...) Make the victimizers look bad(...) Get funds from corporate America(...)[12]]Gay Agenda Wiki



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 


Hahaha!!!! You guys are killing me. I should probably just bang my head on the keyboard. Would make better sense.

That's one thing I love about this site, you guy's are tough cookies and let nothing slip. I'm gonna go choke down some Humble Pie and get back to work.

Have a nice day.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

AfterInfinity

TheWrightWing

SaturnFX

Respect the law, respect equality, and all is fine...no agenda necessary.


You mean the law that prohibits two men from marrying?

Or what?


Or the law that prohibits women from getting their hair cut without express permission from their spouse.


So by "Respect The Law" your sort really means "Only laws we like, not the ones we haven't changed yet!"

Which is the point I was making.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

SgtHamsandwich
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 


Hahaha!!!! You guys are killing me. I should probably just bang my head on the keyboard. Would make better sense.


Yes, I am aware of the preference a certain sort has for nonsense over cold hard facts.

Facts and plain logic are not much fun and always ruin a certain ideologies' buzz.

Fact: Gays have the same "right" to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else does. That's equality under the law.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   

TheWrightWing

AfterInfinity

TheWrightWing

SaturnFX

Respect the law, respect equality, and all is fine...no agenda necessary.


You mean the law that prohibits two men from marrying?

Or what?


Or the law that prohibits women from getting their hair cut without express permission from their spouse.


So by "Respect The Law" your sort really means "Only laws we like, not the ones we haven't changed yet!"



"your sort"? What's that mean?

So you were in the Air Force?



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 



Fact: Gays have the same "right" to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else does. That's equality under the law.


Please tell me then, why aren't they allowed to marry somebody of the same sex? What possible reason could there be for them to be excluded from a government subsidy and financial assistance program?

~Tenth



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   

TheWrightWing

AfterInfinity

TheWrightWing

SaturnFX

Respect the law, respect equality, and all is fine...no agenda necessary.


You mean the law that prohibits two men from marrying?

Or what?


Or the law that prohibits women from getting their hair cut without express permission from their spouse.


So by "Respect The Law" your sort really means "Only laws we like, not the ones we haven't changed yet!"

Which is the point I was making.


It's not like the blacks were freed, women granted rights, and America made an independent nation by following the rules. As I've said before, progress requires a minimum of two parties: one to create a problem, another to fix it.
edit on 20-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

whyamIhere
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Very Funny...

But minding your own business goes both ways.


Agreed. Can we agree also in equality for all regardless of etc etc etc...?

As I said, the only agenda I have ever seen from the gay movement is simple equality. There are some traditions that are being tested, because yes...we are not being treated equally under the old traditions.

___
Note I said we...I am not gay, or a redhead, or with brown eyes, or a anchovy lover, or etc. I say we because we are all people. I normally write "they", because subconsciously I categorize them as a different thing because of a preference..but its we..and inequality amongst we the people is simply wrong.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

TheWrightWing

SaturnFX

Respect the law, respect equality, and all is fine...no agenda necessary.


You mean the law that prohibits two men from marrying?

Or what?

Was thinking more on the lines of consenting adults.

When respecting a law inhibits respecting equality (or visa versa), then one must change. The only question is which.
I suggest equality trumps laws. Equality is a principle, law is a technicality.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   

tothetenthpower
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 



Fact: Gays have the same "right" to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else does. That's equality under the law.


Please tell me then, why aren't they allowed to marry somebody of the same sex? What possible reason could there be for them to be excluded from a government subsidy and financial assistance program?

~Tenth


Marriage is composed of a man and a woman. Anything else is something else.

Would a civil union with the same tax and identical benefits as marriage be sufficient?

Somehow I think it would not be.

The goal is to redefine marriage into meaninglessness, not "equality".





new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join