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.

 

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

page: 5
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I want to let you all know that not all gay people are like this. I personally just want EQUALITY. I don't want special rights. I don't want a parade. I don't want to be put on a pedestal. I only want people to see me as an equal and not some "abomination to god."

However, there are counterproductive gay groups that push us further into stereotypes. They are simply militant. They seem to think that doing everything short of screwing in the streets will make people accept us. It's embarassing. I am ashamed and appalled that these are the groups that have taken it upon themselves to represent the homosexual community as a whole. We didn't elect them and they don't necessarily reflect the views of the LGBT community any more than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton reflect the views of the african-american community.




posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 



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


ofcourse it would.

I've been saying for years I don't care if they call it "rainbow happy time" as long as it provides the same benefits under the law, then what's the issue?

The fact that they've been fighting over the use of a single word is the single dumbest thing I"ve seen in a while.


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


Those are personal interpretations. Nobody can change your personal definition of what a marriage is, unless you let it.

It doesn't invalidate your marriage, nor anybody else's to have homosexuals getting married.

~Tenth
edit on 12/20/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   

TheWrightWing
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".

According to what?
Marriage has been (and still is in some areas) a man taking on a woman...many women actually if he wanted providing he could support them.

Marriage has already been altered to monogamy.
Why not alter it more? Its clearly not a religious thing considering its been altered already by man. It is about as religious as a boy scouts badge.

Thing is, if Marriage was simply a religious ceremony without government acknowledgement, then I would agree with marriage is (currently) M+F. But, that ship has sailed long, long ago...
I think a adjective may however be best introduced before marriage to describe (by those who wish it) what type of marriage it is. Union marriage (could be any combo), Traditional marriage(1 man, 1 woman), Muslim marriage(1 man, many women potential)...there are many possibilities if there is ever a rational discussion about it...there won't be for awhile, but one day.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

TheWrightWing

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".


Marriage is also a religious practice, given that most "official" marriages are presided over by a representative of one religion or another. It's not valid unless a priest recognizes it in the eyes of God, right?

Which means that marriage would then be considered "legally" meaningless, just as being a priest doesn't give you the right to absolve a man of murder in the courtroom. What marriage means to you in your own house, according to your own virtues, is entirely up to you. But in the eyes of the government, it would be about as meaningful as knowing your preferred color of undergarment. Sure, it's your right to have a preferred color. Don't expect it to impress them though.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


Hhmmmm,
That is a good question.
Let me look at the Agenda Checklist:

www.youtube.com...

O.K now that that is done, I will answer your question.
Nope, it will not stop until there are enough cases of
"reverse discrimination", that require Congress to enact
another set of laws.

S&F



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


What are you doing that they are in your face then?

All I hear is they want to be able to get married and treated with the same rights that everyone else does. They are refused this and it would piss me off too, so they have to make some noise and then you think they're being militant.

How about stop getting in the way of things that don't affect you and then you won't feel like it's being forced down your throat.

"Oh boo hoo the homos want to get married why wont they just shut up and stop forcing their problems down my throat." as you all ignore legislation that treats people with discrimination.

Ignorance, bigotry, and apathy. Wallow in it.


(post by winofiend removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Seriously,

If you can't participate in a discussion.

That's on you.
edit on 20-12-2013 by whyamIhere because: Spelling



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

whyamIhere
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Very Funny...

But minding your own business goes both ways.



And which laws specifically prevent you from doing anything as a heterosexual?

If there was just one, then I'd agree with you. But all this comes across to me as people who want gay people to shut up about being treated as equal, and get back in the closet, where their deviant behaviours won't get under your hat.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 05:53 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.


Ahha. There ya go.

He'd be rallying for slave ownership at the right point in time too... you know, when it was legal.

Oh .. how I miss my ignore button.


(post by winofiend removed for a manners violation)
(post by winofiend removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Interracial marriage still only makes up 4% of our population, and it was less than 1% when people first began fighting to have it legalized. I'm happy they pushed for their agenda and didn't shut up just because they are a small group.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 


Marriage ought to be reclassified as a religious practice, in the same style as confession and communion. Civil union certifications all the way. Either you pay for the right to be legally recognized as a couple, or you just put on a ring and consider yourself married from that day forward.
edit on 20-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


Actually, the latter part is what my wife and I did. We are not legally married, but for all other intensive purposes we are. We have kids. The kids have my last name. We might get the legal document at some point, but we don't need that paper to designate our love and at least where we live, we have little problems. I was able to be by my wife's side during the c-sections, and all day and night in the room. There was no issues with the birth certificates having my name on them, etc. (I am a man btw)

I had to realize this was in the rant thread; but I still feel it is a bit embellished. You only get out of the world what you allow yourself to see. There are crazy overreaching groups out there ... so if this is related to the GLAAD (or whatever) attack on the duck dynasty patriarch, I sympathize but that doesn't mean you can paint a broad brush against everyone who engages in people of their own gender.

It doesn't matter what % of the population they are; they are citizens, they are equal. If it was 1% would they mean even less than at 5%? If you found out it was actually 20% that were gay and/or bisexual, would you then give their freedoms and opinions more respect?

Equality. It is a simple definition. It is one they don't have at the moment. They have to fight for it, because there are many, many more trying to prevent their equality. Mainly religious extremists who don't understand the words in their own good book that defines that they should treat everyone equal, follow the law of the land (everyone is equal), they shouldn't judge, they should treat others as they'd treat themselves, etc etc.

In fact, as soon as the first religious person put religion as a reason for not allowing gay marriage, it should by default have went through for gay marriage immediately. Separation of church and state. Religious marriage is different and separate from legal marriage. One is about faith and your spiritual bond and commitment in relation to that faith; the other is based on the love of people for each other with legal benefits including being able to be with each other in times of need (hospitals), financial, etc.

Simply put, religious people argue semantics, but they have no right to dictate the law. They also have no right to hate or pass judgement. In fact, the very act of judging and hate is very grave sins in the good book. They need to step back, understand that, and repent while asking forgiveness from their lord and the strength to be loving and supporting to their society.

I've never had any gay man make me feel unreasonably uncomfortable. I've had straight women try to force themselves on me, but never a gay man. I've never had a gay man try to shove anything down my throat ... (nice wording OP)

Right now I'm feeling pretty ranty in general, but not exactly from this thread; but in general from people in various threads that are irking the hell out of me. So I apologize for my aggression here, slightly misdirected.

So, if we presume that the figure in the OP is correct, and 5% of the U.S. is openly gay, and you are speaking of a quite small minority of those people ... the rant is essentially about 0.01% subgroup of people that take things too far ... well welcome to the idiocy of our country. There is that % of any group that does that. It is our duty as sane people to not judge the whole for the few nutters within them.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   

AfterInfinity


Marriage is also a religious practice, given that most "official" marriages are presided over by a representative of one religion or another. It's not valid unless a priest recognizes it in the eyes of God, right?



Buddhists have marriage ceremonies, and many Buddhists sects are agnostic/athiest. If I fall in love with another man and want to marry him, it wouldn't be done in the eyes of any god.

Theravada and Zen Buddhists don't consider same sex lovers inherently wrong. If you have honest loving intentions and emotions then you are still in line with the 3rd precept. There is no special stigma against homosexuality, gays are expected to live by the same relationship rules as straights. Gay monks are expected to be celibate just like straight ones.

Why do I have to legally conform to Christianity when I'm not a christian? Churches, bibles and priests mean nothing to me. Christianity should stop forcing it's agenda on everyone.
edit on 20-12-2013 by mahatche because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2013 by mahatche because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Some times I wish I was gay... They seem to have so much fun...

I don't like the scene though. I don't want to see straight people acting all in love and squishy either.

Please keep your personal lives personal ?



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist
 





So, if we presume that the figure in the OP is correct, and 5% of the U.S. is openly gay, and you are speaking of a quite small minority of those people ... the rant is essentially about 0.01% subgroup of people that take things too far ... well welcome to the idiocy of our country. There is that % of any group that does that. It is our duty as sane people to not judge the whole for the few nutters within them.


You are right. I am only talking about 0.01%

That small percentage of people do not represent the entire group.

I wish I could of written the OP as elegant as your above quote.

I also think living in So. Cal subjects me to more crazy media than other markets.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


I appreciate you are talking about America, but if you feel there is no issue, look at what is happening just outside your window for a little perspective.....


www.bbc.co.uk...




top topics



 
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join