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: 7
46
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

TheWrightWing

MrPlow
As soon as the gay community is given full rights that the hetero community enjoys, the sooner they will pipe down.


You wish.

Gays have the exact same equal rights as anyone else. Identical.

Some animals insist on being more equal than others.


No. They don't. That's blatantly misinformative and, I suspect, intentionally so.
edit on 21-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
My opinion is transsexuals really make the case for this being behavioral or mental. People are not born into the "wrong" body. Otherwise we would be agreeing with the guy in the mental ward who feels he is napoleon but was born into the "wrong" body. Changing outer appearance does not change ones gender. This is a mental issue some type of dysmorphic disorder or something. We treat this in other people but since it has been grafted into the gay/lesbian movement people have to participate in some powerful cognitive dissonance and pretend that this is about rights.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


All we are doing is discussing this very active minority.

Please don't put words in my mouth...

Merry Christmas



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


i would never argue nor deny that some people have Agendas, have we talked about the Straight Agenda? or the Republican Agenda? Liberal Agenda? Religious Agenda? your Agenda?

what about the Militant Religious? or the Militant Racist? or the Militant Straight?



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Darth_Prime
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


i would never argue nor deny that some people have Agendas, have we talked about the Straight Agenda? or the Republican Agenda? Liberal Agenda? Religious Agenda? your Agenda?

what about the Militant Religious? or the Militant Racist? or the Militant Straight?



I certainly agree everybody has an Agenda.

I think this vocal minority does most Gay people a disservice.

My friends that happen to be Gay just want to live their lives.

They are not interested in getting money from "Corporate America".



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


Correct, personally i don't expect nor want "Special Treatment" just true Equality, for everyone. even those that may disagree with me or even hate me because of my sexuality.

i speak out against hate speech of any kind, of tolerance, of love and acceptance. yes there are many "Gay" groups that are there to show their support to those that get mistreated, that are there when you need them because other people are not.

of course there are "Bad" homosexuals, it is moronic to believe that there is not one bad, or evil Gay in this world, the same for straight, and any sexuality, gender, race, religion.


at the same time, we can't get punished for those that try to take advantage of the situations, we can't get grouped into the same category just because we are Gay



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 





at the same time, we can't get punished for those that try to take advantage of the situations, we can't get grouped into the same category just because we are Gay


I agree.

I can respect anyone who stands up for their Rights.

As long as it doesn't infringe on mine.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   

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


Gone are those days LOL, along with men only clubs. Seems there are two sets of rules.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

NihilistSanta
thewrightwing is correct it is really about the destruction of the family unit. This is about giving all authority to the state. Do you think that once cloning and genetic reprogramming are possible that society wont be further pushed to give the authority of the production of people to the state? Think Gattaca or Brave New World here. Sexual relations were encouraged so long as no lasting connection was made or attempt to have children or a family. Children were even encouraged to explore sex. Huxley was a member of the elite he was tuned in to this stuff.

The family unit is the main opposition. The agenda is not necessarily one designed by gays but rather the elite. It is designed to trivialize the concept of family. Even in this thread people call to abolish marriage. People fight and die for their families. They vote thinking about their children. The family is a major hurdle for the elite and anything to weaken that structure is encouraged. The elite want to destroy all of the old world ideas . This is why the phoenix is often used. Out of the ashes of that old world they hope to rise.

Gays supporting the "agenda" are just useful idiots in so much as they are merely following self interest. That very act is going to create tension.


Right...No LGBT genuinely want rights and acceptance enough to start their own movement. We are all just a part of an agenda designed to ruin families! The big bad powers that be are the ones making us think we deserve to be treated with respect.

I must admit though, I do find it interesting that people who likely wouldn't accept a gay family member get to carry the "family values" banner. I guess the big bad powers that be have really got to me, cause if this is family values then I have to admit to hating family values. I always figured a truly strong family could make it though anything, and something like a guy realizing he likes another guy wouldn't even effect a truly stable family.
edit on 21-12-2013 by mahatche because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
The gay agenda is to be treated equally. Of course, that doesn't sound so sinister so they call it the gay agenda to enrage homophobes and religious fundamentalists. The "gay agenda" will go away when gays are treated equally and are no longer murdered/beaten/bullied because of their sexual orientation.

If the people who complained about this agenda weren't complete idiots, they would be fighting for the rights of gays, instead of complaining about the lack of straight pride parades (and thus fail to understand why pride parades exist), and pretending to be persecuted because someone called them a bigot due to their opposition to two people getting legally married due for no reason other than their sexual orientation.

None of the above is a exaggeration either: I've seen people say those things in a non-ironic manner.


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 should only be between a man and a woman because it's only been between a man and woman" is basically what you're saying. That doesn't even qualify as an argument, you're basically saying that we should not do something because we've always not done it. It's just a really dumb thing to say.

And two people who love each having a legal contract is not meaningless regardless of your idiotic opinions on the matter. You would think that allowing gay people to marry people who they're not attracted to in any shape or form would be more meaningless (not to mention drive-thru marriages amongst other things) than the former, but I forget that logic and the anti-marriage equality crowd tend to not go together.
edit on 21-12-2013 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, initiated by the exchange of vows.

Why cant you keep your damn mouth shut?

(Returns to corner affixes hat)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   

bobs_uruncle

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


Gone are those days LOL, along with men only clubs. Seems there are two sets of rules.

Cheers - Dave

Agreed, it is not pc to talk of being mainstream but it is very pc to flaunt the opposite.
I don't have a problem with any of the little things in life, but we don't really need to advertise whatever.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   

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


but not the right to marry someone they love and care for. doesn't sound very equitable to me. And if you don't think it violates any constitutional rights you may want to have a chat with the federal judge in Utah that disagrees with you.

And then there's this-

TheWrightWing

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


but that hasn't always been the case, not even in Christianity. Marriage has been redefined over and over again for 1000's of years as societal social constructs change.We don't hand out dowrys or trade our daughters for goats anymore do we?

In his 1994 book, entitled Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, Boswell looks at the institution of marriage in the late classical and early medieval periods, making the argument that the early church probably did recognize unions of romantic love and commitment between members of the same sex. Bruce Holsinger, who wrote the review, points out that Boswell discovered a remarkable eighty manuscripts describing the ceremony, which reached its full flowering as an “office” by the twelfth centurywww.themonastery.org...


and then we have-

www.cs.cmu.edu...://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/serge.html

edit on 21-12-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I'm a straight white guy, married to a straight black woman. As such I can see the issue that homosexuals have with the current status quo. However demanding that individuals abdicate their own rights, because it somehow offends you is selfish, asinine and does us all a disservice. Essentially you are placing your own opinion on a pedestal and labeling detractors bigots, racists, ad nauseum.

*Examples that come to mind are pastors that get hung out to dry for refusing to officiate interracial marriages (which isn't required on the official copy) and bakers that are run out of town for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding reception.


However after reading the entire thread and reading the grandstanding from both sides, what offended me the most was that one of the proponents of homosexual marriage was wallowing like a pig in # at the recent court ruling that came out of Utah.

As it stands the NCCAP/LGBTQ/CAIR.... organizations had the possibility to, or were making great headway in getting the majority of the nation to accept them, but when you have examples such as what occurred in Utah take what was essentially a mandate by the citizens and use bench legislation to circumvent it, it tends to leave a bad aftertaste. Judicial activism and many of these groups that represent minorities (not limited to race) are disingenuous.

*As a caveat, I couldn't care less about two boys kissing, or the possibility of them marrying. I, much like the OP failed to get across, am just sick of the ridiculousness that .5% of the gay community have done to the entire movement. In my opinion, and the opinion of my gay friends that I've known for 15 years and that own the gay bar I frequent, it's one thing to like the same sex and another to put a lisp on every word, wave with a broken wrist, saunter around wriggling your hips like a horny teen and screw like dogs in heat.

Side note: I have been wondering about some possible impacts that could occur when homosexual marriage it federally recognized (it is an undeniable outcome). Recently, perhaps over the last 10 years, I have seen an increase in the support that other sexual fringe elements have been receiving; including relationships between an adult and a minor, inter-species sexual relationships, bigamy/multiple-partner relationships and inter-familial relationships. A google search of each topic listed will show how the MSM is priming the propaganda pump and testing the waters on each of these topics to see which one will be the next civil rights battle.

I am in no way equating any of the previous categories of 'love' to what two consenting homosexuals have, but you have to admit that it would be easy to plagiarize their playbook. A recent example would be this trial and all of its twists and turns: .

Kaitlyn Hunt

Or this one:

Hutchinson/Stodden Marriage



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   

mahatche

NihilistSanta
thewrightwing is correct it is really about the destruction of the family unit. This is about giving all authority to the state. Do you think that once cloning and genetic reprogramming are possible that society wont be further pushed to give the authority of the production of people to the state? Think Gattaca or Brave New World here. Sexual relations were encouraged so long as no lasting connection was made or attempt to have children or a family. Children were even encouraged to explore sex. Huxley was a member of the elite he was tuned in to this stuff.

The family unit is the main opposition. The agenda is not necessarily one designed by gays but rather the elite. It is designed to trivialize the concept of family. Even in this thread people call to abolish marriage. People fight and die for their families. They vote thinking about their children. The family is a major hurdle for the elite and anything to weaken that structure is encouraged. The elite want to destroy all of the old world ideas . This is why the phoenix is often used. Out of the ashes of that old world they hope to rise.

Gays supporting the "agenda" are just useful idiots in so much as they are merely following self interest. That very act is going to create tension.


Right...No LGBT genuinely want rights and acceptance enough to start their own movement. We are all just a part of an agenda designed to ruin families! The big bad powers that be are the ones making us think we deserve to be treated with respect.

I must admit though, I do find it interesting that people who likely wouldn't accept a gay family member get to carry the "family values" banner. I guess the big bad powers that be have really got to me, cause if this is family values then I have to admit to hating family values. I always figured a truly strong family could make it though anything, and something like a guy realizing he likes another guy wouldn't even effect a truly stable family.
edit on 21-12-2013 by mahatche because: (no reason given)


Most movements have been co-opted by the elite for their own ends so don't feel bad. As for your talk of family values I suppose a family Is a Husband/Wife and kids. You guys cant have families its part of your decision to pursue your sexual taste. What foundation is there for a family when neither person can subdue their base desires in order to proceed with the acts necessary to create a family. You can have a coupling but a family denotes procreation.

ETA - I know of plenty of ruined families because one partner decided to suddenly pursue being a homosexual even after being married and having kids. So much for being born that way?
edit on 21-12-2013 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   

peter vlar

but not the right to marry someone they love and care for. doesn't sound very equitable to me. And if you don't think it violates any constitutional rights you may want to have a chat with the federal judge in Utah that disagrees with you.



Historically (at least in the US) no one has had that right. Some people were just lucky enough to love and care for someone who was of the right age and gender, and single, and far enough removed from the person's immediate family, to be allowed to marry by the state.

At least, that's one way of looking at it. There has never been a rule that said "straight people can marry whoever they love and choose, and gay's can't." It's always been something like "anyone can marry anyone who is unmarried and above the age of __ and not a close relative and a different gender."

Though come to think of it, have gays ever actually been legally banned from marrying? I know homosexual behavior has been criminalized, but I'd be interested to know if the state has ever said "thou shalt not be married, or we will throw you in jail, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth." I always thought it was "we will not recognize your marriage." I'd be curious if anyone has info on this.

Anyway, IMHO marriage is inherently a religious ceremony. I mean, think about it–do we really want the state to control marriage too?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:10 AM
link   
listen anyone who's gay is gay, that's the bottom line



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   

spartacus699
listen anyone who's gay is gay, that's the bottom line



You feel like clarifying that?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
I'm tired of having to know about the sex-lives of strangers and co-workers.

Liberalism promised us a class-less society; all we got was a society without any class.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Why is it that straight people have to walk on eggshells so as to not offend the gay community but the gay community is coddled like some injured little bird and does not have to worry about offending anyone else??




top topics



 
46
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join