Video: Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman

Originally posted by MAINTAL




It is simply a tradition of heterosexual people that have said THIS IS OURS this thing called Marriage between a man and a woman and it is important to us to keep it special to us.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

So in order for something to be special, it has to exclude certain people?

Thats interesting.

reply to post by htownbeantownhb


whew. they had me going there for a bit!
thank you for clearing that up!

reply to post by xander68


i never quite understood the entire pretense about the marriage vows, myself. i figured once you committed yourself to one partner, that was a vow you made to that person. making vows to God is dangerous. in fact, Jesus even says to avoid that particular thing at all costs! cause you have no idea what you will do in the future and vows before God are serious business (which the government has no business meddling with).

reply to post by undo


True- and we know millions of people break those vows. For something that is so special to them, they constantly trample all over it.

reply to post by undo



Undo you stated TWICE that they PHYSICALLY pushed the lady with their bodies, or their stomaches.

I have stated that I watched the video again specifically looking for those incidents and I could NOT see them.

Once again, since you say this happened, please point out the exact time in the video that they physically pushed the lady. If you have reviewed the tape again and could not find an example, that is okay too, but please do not ignore my request since you were so adamant about the physical assault.



[edit on 12-11-2008 by Sonya610]

reply to post by Sonya610


one time in the video was right at the end, but that has since been cut from the end. either they cut it because it was too inflamatory or my net connection fudged it up because i rewatched it and i didn't see it either. but the first time, i saw several incidences of it.

Originally posted by undoone time in the video was right at the end, but that has since been cut from the end. either they cut it because it was too inflamatory or my net connection fudged it up because i rewatched it and i didn't see it either. but the first time, i saw several incidences of it.

So it WAS there and now it is gone. Hmmm. Well the news hates inflammatory video clips that will get more air time or publicity, it must have been edited (yeah right).

Of ALL people...gay men are the LEAST LIKELY to make physical contact with a woman, or most especially an elderly lady, without consciously doing it. Expecially in a violent way!! They maybe loud and get excited but they are NOT thugs that go around assaulting people, least of all elderly women.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by Sonya610]

reply to post by Sonya610


it looks like it was edited. i'll watch it again, but don't start accusing me of stuff!
why would i lie about that? if you think i came in here and got my nerves tied up in knots, just so i could lie, you got another thing coming!

Originally posted by xander68

Originally posted by MAINTAL




It is simply a tradition of heterosexual people that have said THIS IS OURS this thing called Marriage between a man and a woman and it is important to us to keep it special to us.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

So in order for something to be special, it has to exclude certain people?

Thats interesting.

No it is special BEFORE it excluded anyone but to be more specific and to answer the claims that civil unions are not the same, the fact is they are the same in many states, in others they are not that much different.

The difference comes where I suggested in my first post. It is about THEM seeking our approval of their life style. The idea they have that adding as many icons of normal relationships to their own will somehow change attitudes or change the way they see themselves, is like any other attempt to legislate attitudes. It simply won't change a damn thing. Married or not they are STILL GAY. It is their problem they have with that NOT MINE

Marriage Is More Than a Civil Union

by Dale Carpenter

First published February 3, 2005, in the Bay Area Reporter.

Is there anything important at stake in the debate over whether to recognize gay relationships as marriages or as civil unions? I asked that question to a group of gay friends not long ago. Out of 10 people, no one could come up with a very good answer. A few said that as long as the law gave gay couples equivalent legal rights the difference between marriages and civil unions was “semantic.” The implication was that the difference is trivial. Since increasing numbers of Americans seem to view civil unions as an acceptable compromise between nothing and full-fledged gay marriage, what's the big deal?

Recognizing gay marriage, as Massachusetts now does, means conferring on gay couples all of the rights, benefits, and responsibilities conferred on opposite-sex married couples under state law. Beyond these legal matters, however, recognizing gay marriage offers the promise of something at least as important. That is the social approval and support that come with marriage. Marriage has a long history; it is woven into our cultural fabric. It comes with common expectations and a common language that couples and their families and friends readily recognize.

As practiced in Vermont, civil unions confer on gay couples all of the rights, benefits, and responsibilities conferred on opposite-sex married couples under state law. What civil unions cannot offer is the social approval and support that come with marriage. Civil unions have no history; they are not woven into the fabric of our culture. There are no common expectations or language that come with them. To family and friends, a civil union cannot be asserted; it must be explained. Even after the explanation, a civil union is unlikely to be regarded as the equivalent of a marriage.

This difference between gay marriage and civil unions cannot be dismissed as a merely semantic one. Words are the way we frame and experience our lives. They reflect and reinforce what we think of others and what others think of us.

Originally posted by undoit looks like it was edited. i'll watch it again, but don't start accusing me of stuff!
why would i lie about that? if you think i came in here and got my nerves tied up in knots, just so i could lie, you got another thing coming!

I do not think you were "lying" i think you really believed they were pushing her around. But in fact they were NOT. That is not lying, that is watching a video and seeing things that were not there because you got emotional, and because the story said "attacked". It was subliminal, you read "attacked old lady" and when you watched the video you "saw them attack an old lady" even though it never actually happened.

She is a little tiny woman, they are MUCH bigger, she is elderly! If they started bumping her she would have probably fallen, or been knocked back into the people behind her. I just don't see her getting bumped or pushed and taking it without falling.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by Sonya610]

reply to post by Sonya610


no, the video was longer. the section i saw is gone now. i don't know why, but it is. and there's a section that's totally dark. i don't remember that from the first time. that may have been where the other part was. doesn't matter. point is, they took her property and stomped it. if it was a fake scenario to make gay people look bad, it's working. but since someone mentioned it was faked, i feel a bit better although seeing some of the responses here is certainly not very comforting.

Originally posted by undo
it was a fake scenario to make gay people look bad, it's working. but since someone mentioned it was faked, i feel a bit better although seeing some of the responses here is certainly not very comforting.

Yeah when I watched it the second time i thought it seemed fake too. First of all the news station is NOT shown on the video footage, it just says "live". News stations always have their channel's listed.

Second, a lot of the guys honestly did not look all that "gay". A lot of them were rather, well, out of shape (not to say there are no fat gay men, but at a rally most would not sport huge beer guts in t-shirts). So this was all a hoax? Well if it is a hoax then they probably DID push her!

If it is fake them the people that did this (perhaps christians against gay marriage?) should be VERY VERY ashamed. It is sickening.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by Sonya610]

reply to post by MAINTAL

As practiced in Vermont, civil unions confer on gay couples all of the rights, benefits, and responsibilities conferred on opposite-sex married couples under state law.

Yes, but that article writer either does not understand or ignores that marriage for straights goes beyond the state level. There are rights that those in civil unions do not have, sometimes they do in their state, but when it comes to things like immigration issues that involve a partner who is not a citizen they are treated entirely differently. Give us civil unions in every state that give us all the same rights and save marriage for the religious people then I’ll entirely agree with you, currently this is not the case. Marriage is recognized as a privilege in America for all straights, no matter if they choose to not have families or if they’ve only known the person they are marrying for five minutes, it has ceased to be sacred, it is a legal issue now.

www.yffn.org...



[edit on 12-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by MAINTAL
It simply won't change a damn thing. Married or not they are STILL GAY. It is their problem they have with that NOT MINE

Gee, Im gay and I dont see it as a problem. The only problem I see is that some people use the 'institution of marriage' as a way to exclude certain people or groups from getting the same benefits they enjoy, simply because they arent sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

When I see Americans treat marriage as the 'special tradition' they claim it to be, maybe I'll believe thats the real motive behind it.

In other news- Connecticut married its first gay couple I hear!!

You see Maintal, things are changing. They will take time, but they are changing. Just because something has always been, doesnt mean it will always be.

Link to what I mentioned above:

www.wfsb.com...

reply to post by Sonya610


or it could be even worse! it could be someone trying to instigate violence between gays and christians. THINK PAST YOUR PREJUDICE PLEASE?!!

reply to post by xander68


Hey xander68, I've been tackling this "tradition" argument in another thread, and it appears gay marriage has actually existed before, quite a long time ago. So the argument that marriage has always been one way seems to be rapidly falling apart. Not that it was a strong one to begin with, things like slavery have been around much longer, as a society we have greatly progressed, we can certainly let gays enjoy the same rights if doing so does not lawfully affect us. The tradition argument is just an excuse, and a bad one at that.

Originally posted by undoor it could be even worse! it could be someone trying to instigate violence between gays and christians. THINK PAST YOUR PREJUDICE PLEASE?!!

LOL...name some groups that aim to start a war between Gays and Christians. It fits the Christian agenda, I can't think of any other agenda it would fit. Can YOU?

Oooohhh...the Muslims! OMG its Osama bin Laden! LOL

reply to post by Sonya610


yes, in fact i can. many. you've been here at ATS long enough to know that the plan is to lessen the population and to take out those deemed unfit for civilized society. so watch the people that are being set up on the news. and you'll get some idea of who they deem unfit. gay people, muslims, jews and christians, must be some of the groups because the media is massaging it for all its worth.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by undo]

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

Actually they don't, this is a common misconception.

rapinbatsisaltherage, I have so far heard you have to tell people that more times than I can count. At the risk of upsetting you again, I'd like to propose that this is an area that needs to be addressed legally, and that has a very good chance of success if properly pursued.

Apparently, someone is not getting the word out sufficiently. I was not aware of the differences myself until our discussions. Perhaps that could be addressed, rather than badgering some old lady with a cross?

TheRedneck