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.

 

While we're getting rid of the gays lets stone the adulterers

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I mean for real if Bush is so serious about getting rid of gays because the bible doesnt allow them well then why arnt we also having a constitutional amendment that allows people to stone the adulterers. If bush is for real on this logic then shouldnt we also be going against them I just dotn get it sometimes maybe its just me!?




posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Do you have so little self-regard that you would comply if someone told you to kill a person by stoning?

Does it MATTER what George Bush thinks, or wants? The man [and his father] have done more harm to this nation in the last twenty years than the Depression and the last three wars all put together.

He is single-handedly taking down the Constitution, bankrupting the budget, exhausting the military, destroying helpless nations, and sticking both feet in his mouth every time he opens it.

Of course we're not reverting to stoning people! You wanna wear a loin cloth and carry a club--TOOOO?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   
When has Bush announced that he wants to get rid of gays?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaiser617
I mean for real if Bush is so serious about getting rid of gays...


Although it is very common here, I don't think it is wise to start a thread with a straw man argument. Bush opposes same-sex marriage. He has said nothing about getting rid of homosexuals or instituting draconian punishments for moral lapses.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
When has Bush announced that he wants to get rid of gays?


That is exactly what I was gonna ask.

I mean, by stopping gay marriage, you are not stopping gay people. They can't reproduce you know.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Why do you or anyone else care if a gay man or woman gets married? Were your rights taken from you? Is your privacy invaded?

I'm not gay. I get uncomfrotable around gays. But banning marriage doesnt stop gays. It makes them mad and makes them protest, which means you will see alot more of them.

I am against the idea of a mans religious beliefs infringing the rights or hopes of others.

Someone enlighten me. Tell me why I should be against it.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Well we have to be fair. If the gays want to marry eachother then cool, whatever, go ahead.

But also let the father marry his daughter if they want to. Let the man marry 5 wives. Let the man from Maine marry his German Shephard and let that oriental dude marry that barbie that represents his wife.

Equal rights for all!



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
... apparently you're not.

... So, what ELSE is new?

... I'll just say this. I would prefer that Gays have Partnerships and not Marriages. But nobody is listening to ME.

... And on the topic of reverting to capital punishment. There is no logic behind that movement; it's just meeting crimes with more crimes. Jesus was against handling things that way, and so am I.

... So there. My opinion and a buck and a half will buy me a cup of coffee.




posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   
exactly thats what I think!! But I just dont seem to understand the logic of President Bush i mean how is banning gay marriages going to improve the 51 % divorce rate and if he is taking one part of the bible and making it law then shouldnt he take all of the things in the bible and make them law i mean if youre not going to allow gays then you should start stoning the adulterers and start ostrasize the government people (tax collectors) etc.. i just dont get his logic



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by verfed
Well we have to be fair. If the gays want to marry eachother then cool, whatever, go ahead.

But also let the father marry his daughter if they want to. Let the man marry 5 wives. Let the man from Maine marry his German Shephard and let that oriental dude marry that barbie that represents his wife.

Equal rights for all!


Hey they did that in bible times of the ancient world so what is the problem or your forgot the egiptians pure blood line and the story of lot and his daughters.


[edit on 22-11-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by verfed


But also let the father marry his daughter if they want to. Let the man marry 5 wives. Let the man from Maine marry his German Shephard and let that oriental dude marry that barbie that represents his wife.

Equal rights for all!
Jerry Springer needs your business.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
and make it a model for the present or the future are hopelessly attached to their egos.

If they ever witnessed the outcomes and effects they are so enthusiastically promoting, they would have abandoned such methods long long ago.

But people prefer sensationalism to reason. That's Satan at work.





[edit on 22-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   
The one legal reason Gay people want to have marriages is so that they can have the same benefits for their life-partners that Straight married people have. The emotional argument for it is that they are in committed relationships, unlike those straight folks where the guy just thought he'd have unlimited access to free intercourse.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   
You know what? This garbage has got to stop.

I rarely add a thread around here recently, but I did. It involved something real, as in something that is going on now that could concern some people.

Yet instead of having responses to things like that, we get more crap from the biased parade that is running through here like a pack of elephants. This simply is getting ridiculous.

Does it occur to people that this venom or masturbatory posting really does nothing but flood this site with Yahoo Chat level conversation? This huge fiasco of an election has bred a whole new batch of what keeps this country from changing anything of merit.

Trivial Pursuit, for the discriminating propagandist who has everything.

This is exactly the reason thinking people tend to distain listening to every Tom, Dick, and Harry spout off on Bill O'Reilly or Larry King with next to no real support for anything they say. Hell, they even infiltrated C-Span (a favorite of mine, as long as they aren't taking phone calls).

Listen, think, learn. It's the only way to make headway.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by Aelita
When has Bush announced that he wants to get rid of gays?


That is exactly what I was gonna ask.

I mean, by stopping gay marriage, you are not stopping gay people. They can't reproduce you know.


Yep we just get you hetro's to do it for us and keep the ranks full!



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
You know what? This garbage has got to stop.

I rarely add a thread around here recently, but I did. It involved something real, as in something that is going on now that could concern some people.

Yet instead of having responses to things like that, we get more crap from the biased parade that is running through here like a pack of elephants. This simply is getting ridiculous.

Does it occur to people that this venom or masturbatory posting really does nothing but flood this site with Yahoo Chat level conversation? This huge fiasco of an election has bred a whole new batch of what keeps this country from changing anything of merit.

Trivial Pursuit, for the discriminating propagandist who has everything.

This is exactly the reason thinking people tend to distain listening to every Tom, Dick, and Harry spout off on Bill O'Reilly or Larry King with next to no real support for anything they say. Hell, they even infiltrated C-Span (a favorite of mine, as long as they aren't taking phone calls).

Listen, think, learn. It's the only way to make headway.

thank you

*applauds*


its about time



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:29 AM
link   
.
verfed,

I'm sure you meant it facetiously, but I am inclined to believe there is some actual truth there.

Why do we not allow polygamy for Mormans if they can have stable family units that raise reasonably healthy children?

The reason that we credit male-female married couples with special rights is because we have a cultural [perhaps a biological] bias that way.

Why don't we have a much broader perspective? Because we have small minds.

I don't mind laws that protect the vulnerable, such as animals, children and genuinely mentally or economically impaired adults.

The only reason for denying equal treatment to a broad range of consensual adult relationships is simply bias. It would mean that people with lazy thought processes would actually have to use their brains from time to time. We seem to have a hard enough time getting people to exercise their bodies. Although physical exercise probably improves healthy active thought processes.
.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I thought the constitution guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Didn't Cheryl Crow sing "If it makes you happy, then it can't be that bad"?


Originally posted by verfed
Well we have to be fair. If the gays want to marry eachother then cool, whatever, go ahead.

But also let the father marry his daughter if they want to. Let the man marry 5 wives. Let the man from Maine marry his German Shephard and let that oriental dude marry that barbie that represents his wife.

Equal rights for all!


Oh, I can see the problem right there.

Y'see, that's the problem with democracy. I get a vote, but so does George W Bush and any Canadian MP can see he's a moron. Who the hell invented that system?



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Democray and personal liberty can be as much in opposition as in accord. When the majority make decisions about things that they think are right and proper it doesn't neccessarily follow that consensus opinion is correct. That can go for any number of issues. The onus should then be on the majority to give a rational reason for that opinion, especially western countries like the US/Europe which pay so much lip service to concepts like equality and liberty. That's something that's sadly lacking.

For myself I actually prefer the idea of civil union to gay marriage because so many seem to oppose it but, having said that, I've yet to hear one argument against the latter that, when pared right back, simply comes down to the fact that 'well people wouldn't like it.' That's neither rational nor logical.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chuck Stevenson
The one legal reason Gay people want to have marriages is so that they can have the same benefits for their life-partners that Straight married people have. The emotional argument for it is that they are in committed relationships, unlike those straight folks where the guy just thought he'd have unlimited access to free intercourse.


And, just what are those benefits?? And, well, why are they given to married couples?? And, is this preferential treatment to married couples, or a means to offset ingrained sexual discrimination to begin with?

I mean, well, let's take the idea that they want to visit their critically ill partener in the hospital. Isn't the policy of insisting on only close family members being allowed to visit limiting our choices on that. Why can't I just decide for myself who I want to see and who I don't.

Social Security....well, the only reason why there is a problem here is that we are still suffering the afteraffects of centuries of sexual descrimination.

Filing joint statements at tax time in exchange for a cheaper tax rate?? lol!!!
Let me tell you how this works in my house. the last year I worked, my husband was unemployed for nine months. We filed jointly, since well, it meant we got more back. Well, he's "the head of household" on the form, the check comes back in both our names, is deposited in a bank account that he does such a great job of not accounting the transactions in so I won't even touch it....so, in effect, he got to decide just where and how my income tax return was spent.....
another discrimatory policy to begin with.

Are any of these benefits that they offer not the result of descrimination to begin with?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join