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.
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.
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?
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
g146541
Why not have a straight pride parade?
2nd.
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.
"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.
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".
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
TheWrightWing
Fact: Gays have the same "right" to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else does. That's equality under the law.
TheWrightWing
Marriage is composed of a man and a woman. Anything else is something else.
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...
www.cs.cmu.edu...://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/serge.html
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)
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.
spartacus699
listen anyone who's gay is gay, that's the bottom line