Huge anti-gay marriage protest in France

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by MajorAce
Homo/phobia... To know something isn't right does not mean you fear it.Along with being born that way. It does make a good battle cry and helps to brainwash children.Civil unions would give them equal rights. But its not about having equal rights .Needing to get married is about justifying thier actions because even they know its not right .

Good to know ignorance still rules for many people.

Ugh. I weep for this planet.

Humanity is what it is. To think we are enlightened is

Originally posted by MidnightTide

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by MajorAce
Homo/phobia... To know something isn't right does not mean you fear it.Along with being born that way. It does make a good battle cry and helps to brainwash children.Civil unions would give them equal rights. But its not about having equal rights .Needing to get married is about justifying thier actions because even they know its not right .

Good to know ignorance still rules for many people.

Ugh. I weep for this planet.

Humanity is what it is. To think we are enlightened is

Truer words, my friend, have never been spoken.

Originally posted by Bennogob
About 8 people on 10 yesterday didn't protest about this new law on gay marriage but more about the fact that our president François Hollande ( from left wing) forced the French citizens to approve this law without making any referendum

Oh ok, they're protesting more on the fact that Hollande (who's a left winger, which you so clearly noted, thank you) did not allow for a referendum and forced this on French citizens. I have a question here since you're probably closer to us than anybody else. Why is it that we hardly see any of the protest signs mentioning this? It's fairly apparent that much of this has to do about the law itself and not how it came into force. I'm not doubting that this may be a frustration for some, but it's fairly apparent that this at core has to do with gay marriage itself, not Hollande's handling.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak


Would you not have a problem if your son was to be buggered? If you think that approval of actions that only directly affect someone else can not indirectly affect you, you need to rethink a bit.

If my son (hypothetical) wished to "be buggered" as you so eloquently put it; if he was consenting and it was his choice then I would support him. You see, I have no problem with consenting adults engaging in homosexual acts.
You seem to think that only homosexual engage in " buggery", or at least that's how you come across. Heck, I even know some homosexual men who do not take it up the jacksy.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak


What you call "homophobia" could also be called "natural disgust" by a large percentage of the population, couldn't it??.

Not at all. In fact, humans are not the only animals that engage in homosexual behaviour. It's not unnatural just because it's not something you disagree with through personal bias and lack of understanding.

Why do I have to support gay marriage as a qualification for a "good person." From time to time I have seen male dogs try to hump each other in the presence of people and immediately the response from them is "hey cut that out!" Never have I heard "Good for you spot, it's not a choice!" Take that to your Freudian workshop.

I'm not a fan of people 'humping' in public either.
I guess a lot of people anthropomorphise their biases onto animals and their behaviour

I'd go to the Freudian workshop, but I don't want to see my Mum at the moment.

I don't think heterosexuals that support gay rights so vigorously actually do it for the cause.They either started after someone in THEIR family came out gay or they do it for what they see this cause does for their self image.After all, what is the gay population? What is the gay contribution? What is the reason for the gay rights issue constantly spewed through the media? Wouldn't the homeless or pollution fight serve more of a purpose, I mean there's some high digits in the red there...a real reason for alarm.Who cares where Jim puts his junk, and the administration around it? I'm such a hate monger....the nerve of me suggesting that far more important social matters are not as important to the majority as a matter that has nothing to do with most of us really and that it's more ego than anything.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Why don't you see the signs of this? It's very easy to understand : Because you're listening to YOUR media reports from YOUR country and you take this immediately for cash down...
As YOU said in your post , I'm a lot closer to the heart of this societal plot than YOU or anybody else...

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by SQUEALER
What does the word marriage mean?
...

I don't see why we need to corrupt the language by using this special term "marriage", with its well defined meaning, for something else.

You want a different term for when two senior citizens get married?

No. Because we do not know if they will have children or not.

Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

-- Genesis 17:17

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

-- Genesis 17:19

biblehub.com...
biblehub.com...

Even Seniors can have children, if God wills it, as was done in the Bible. Once the marriage is Holy, and blessed by God.

Abraham was as skeptical as you, yet bore a son.

You want a different term for when one or both partners in the marriage are sterile or infertile?

Again, God decides when to impose or remove fertility. Just as with the "Senior couple" above.

You want a different term for when two heterosexuals get married with no intention of having children?

Their intention doesn't matter. They may try to avoid or postpone having a child. But, God still decides whether they shall conceive.

Wow, that's a lot of different terms. Wouldn't it just be simpler to call all those unions "marriage"?

They are all "marriage" because they can all bear children. They don't have to bear children right away. They don't have to intend to have children right away or at all. God will intercede and settle the matter, and when they conceive they will then have to decide whether to accept the blessing or to reject it, have an abortion, and go against God's will. But, that's the whole point of the marriage.

Now if you want to have a gay union, have a "gay union". What's wrong with that? It's not a marriage. It's something else. It's new, and novel, and rebellious, and different, and only the blind and the dumb think its the "same thing".

We don't call women "men". Because they are different from men. Is it discrimination to call the female "women"? To use a different term from "men"? Even the communists, who thought so, introduced a new term "comrade". Everybody became comrade this and comrade that. But, they didn't mess with the old terms. Because that messes with all the histrory books that have been written, and the scriptures that have been written. Young children, growing up and reading those books, would simply get confused, when they saw the word "marriage".

If we taught all young children to call all women "men". Then when they read the bible, they would think that Eve was Steve, and Adam and Eve were two same sex individuals that God had joined in union.

That's just confusion.

New ideas, require new terms.

Originally posted by SQUEALER

Even Seniors can have children, if God wills it, as was done in the Bible. Once the marriage is Holy, and blessed by God.

God will intercede and settle the matter, and when they conceive they will then have to decide whether to accept the blessing or to reject it, have an abortion, and go against God's will. But, that's the whole point of the marriage.

We don't call women "men". Because they are different from men. Is it discrimination to call the female "women"? To use a different term from "men"? Even the communists, who thought so, introduced a new term "comrade". Everybody became comrade this and comrade that. But, they didn't mess with the old terms. Because that messes with all the histrory books that have been written, and the scriptures that have been written. Young children, growing up and reading those books, would simply get confused, when they saw the word "marriage".

If we taught all young children to call all women "men". Then when they read the bible, they would think that Eve was Steve, and Adam and Eve were two same sex individuals that God had joined in union.

That's just confusion.

I can see your point, all those terms would get kinda' confusing. I'm not even sure what the French call it but they have it now, for everyone. You and God can make up silly names for it if it makes you both feel better.

A lot of people get married with no intention at all of having and/or raising children. And I suppose God is almighty enough she could pull the Virgin Mary bit on ol' Steve if she was in the mood. So let's just call it marriage, give everyone the same civil rights regardless of their genders, and be done with it. Deny confusion.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
So let's just call it marriage, give everyone the same civil rights regardless of their genders, and be done with it. Deny confusion.

You mean "embrace the confusion."

That's alright. We already know that just before the end times there will be chaos and confusion.

Men will not even know who they are, or what they are. They will not know what is right and what is wrong.

There's a lot more than just gay men and lesbian women out there. This is just the beginning.

But, I guess we have to start somewhere. It's funny, how men cannot see what is coming down the pike next.

They believe this is just about gay rights.

This is about overturning every established norm.

Every established norm and practice causes "injustice" to some segment of the population.

But you cannot remove those "stones" without tearing down the building that we all live in.

Whoso removeth stones shall be hurt therewith; and he that cleaveth wood shall be endangered thereby.
-- Ecclesiastes 10:9

biblehub.com...


Next up on the agenda, is denying heterosexual married couples the right to bear children. Since, homosexual married couples cannot bear children, and it's discrimination and unfair to allow one married couple to conceive when the other can't. All married couples will be made equal by requiring evey couple to "adopt" a child born in the lab, produced scientifically, in the test tube. This, they will say, is also better, because they can guarantee no Generic Diseases, no deformed babies, no handicap persons, enter the world. The Nazi's tried and failed to get their "Master Race" plan through, but this time around we shall succeed where they failed.

some of you really suck. The reason gay rights is so important, the reason you're a #ing monster if you think it's okay to call homosexuals "disgusting" and prohibit them from having the same legal rights as a straight couple (including benefits; health insurance, taxes, et cetera) you're a #ing fascist. Period.

How dare you sit there like a goddamn bigot and demand that they have less rights than everyone else? what the # is wrong with you?

What's the matter with this country? I'm heartbroken by what I am reading by many of you.

I've never had a gay family member, or a gay friend, and I don't talk about the issue publicly so people notice.
I do this because I believe it's wrong to deny human beings their basic rights.

as long as this attitude is alive there is no salvation.

Originally posted by SQUEALER

That's alright. We already know that just before the end times there will be chaos and confusion.

No we don't. Invoking biblical dogma in your argument is a one way ticket to the crazytown label.

This topic reminds me about one of my favorite quotes:

"Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one. Which one seems unnatural now?"

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Originally posted by kaylaluv
This isn't surprising. France has a large Roman Catholic population. Roman Catholics are known for their anti-gay (i.e., homophobic) stance. Their numbers are going down though - but they won't go out without a fight. It's their right to try, I suppose. But they are on the wrong side of history, so they will lose in the end.

To the majority of people, Christian or otherwise, homosexual sodomy has always been a detestable act, frequently punishable by death.

But straight sodomy is fine huh?
It's ignorance, fear and prejudice and comes from rednecks and the religious right nutjobs who always worry about what other people are doing.

I say good on gay marriage. It doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect you, you only think it does.

I choose not to be a bigot.

i think the word sodomy means homosexual ,it comes from sodom in the bible which referred to the homos there not men bumming women.

Originally posted by Pistoche
This topic reminds me about one of my favorite quotes:

"Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one. Which one seems unnatural now?"

if you can give ten examples of gay animals, which shouldn't be too hard considering there's "over 450 species", i wont believe you are talking (or perhaps quoting) utter crap.

until then....

if you can give ten examples of gay animals, which shouldn't be too hard considering there's "over 450 species", i wont believe you are talking (or perhaps quoting) utter crap.

A simple google search yields: Wikipedia: Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom

As always, all of the Wikipedia sources are cited at the bottom of the page, feel free to double and triple check them. Perhaps if you squint hard enough, you'll be able to see what you want to see.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Originally posted by kaylaluv
This isn't surprising. France has a large Roman Catholic population. Roman Catholics are known for their anti-gay (i.e., homophobic) stance. Their numbers are going down though - but they won't go out without a fight. It's their right to try, I suppose. But they are on the wrong side of history, so they will lose in the end.

To the majority of people, Christian or otherwise, homosexual sodomy has always been a detestable act, frequently punishable by death.

TPTB, i.e. the International Bankers, have plans regarding the world, and definite plans to overcome Christianity in the West. They appear to be succeeding. It does appear that only the second coming of Christ or a world-wide disater of biblical proportions will be able to foil their plans---that or, remotely perhaps, enough exposure to homosexual deviancy. Forcing the citizens to give their tacit approval/seal to something they detest is one of the worst of wrongs--but for some, it is "the right side of history."

edit on 26-5-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)

So every homosexual engages in sodomy do they?
No hetero's sodomise each other do they?
Do female homosexuals sodomize each other?
And they're all deviants are they?
There's no such thing as a deviant hetero is there?

Love does not equate to sex. You seem to imply that allowing two same sex people to commit their lives to each other constitutes a carte blanche to perform bizarre sex acts all over the place.
No doubt you're one of those who equates homosexuality with paedophilia too.

What century are you living in?
(Well, if you're a christian, somewhere around 2000 years ago)
People like you are the problem with this world, not gays.